News briefs - Australia, Denmark, Indonesia, Italy, USA

Australia - Heavy vehicle charges review starts

Transport and Logistics News Australia reports on how the National Transport Commission is consulting on proposed changes to the heavy vehicle charges system (most of which are about how the charges are calculated).

The article is perhaps more interesting for its summary of how Australia charges trucks to use its roads. It is not road pricing or tolls, but a reasonable means of trying to be as efficient as possible in using fuel tax and ownership taxes.

Rather than the widely used non-system of political/bureaucratic guesses as to what might be charged, it involves calculating costs attributable to heavy vehicles, costs attributable to all vehicles and then setting charges to recover from heavy vehicles their share of infrastructure costs. 60% are recovered from fuel tax and 40% from vehicle ownership taxes.  Fuel tax is collected at the Federal level, but ownership taxes at the state level.

The principles applied are as below:

• Full recovery of allocated infrastructure costs while minimising both the over and under recovery from any class of vehicle;
• Cost-effectiveness of pricing instruments;
• Transparency;
• The need to balance administrative simplicity, efficiency and equity (e.g. impact on regional and remote communities/access);
• The need to have regard to other pricing applications such as light vehicle charges, tolling and congestion;
• Ongoing cost recovery in aggregate;
• The removal of cross-subsidies between vehicle classes.

Now without distance and weight based charging, the system is going to be very much second best, but this system for setting charges is more advanced than that used to set charges in much of North America and Europe.   It is, at least, based on setting clear objectives with the need for transparent economic analysis to be used to base charges, and it does provide a framework which could be easily adapted to weight/distance based road user charging.

Denmark - Environmental Economic Council calls for road pricing to replace ownership and purchase taxes

The Copenhagen Post reports that the head of Det Miljøøkonomiske Råd, the environmental economic council, Hans Jørgen Whitta-Jacobsen, has suggested replacing the extortionate vehicle ownership taxes with a distance based road pricing system.  Vehicle purchase taxes cost 105% of the purchase value of a car up to 79,000 DKK (US$13,778) and 180% for every Kroner of value above that.  This imposes an enormous tax on the purchase of a new car.   Ownership taxes start at DKK120 (US$21) for the most fuel efficient diesel cars up to DKK15090 (US$2632) for the least efficient.  All of this makes car ownership expensive, and so doesn't target driving on the most congested roads (so penalises rural areas and those who without jobs accessible by public transit, walking or cycling).   His biggest concern is that such taxes discourage motorists from buying newer, more fuel efficient low emission vehicles.

Indonesia - PT Jasa Marga expecting increased revenue from growing network

The Jakarta Post reports that PT Jasa Marga, Indonesia's largest state owned toll road company, is expecting a 16.1% revenue increase this year, worth a total of US$671 million.   It has a network of 545km of toll roads with four new toll roads to open this calendar year (Nusa Dua-Ngurah Rai-Benoa road in Bali, Kebon Jeruk-Ciledug road in Jakarta, Gempol-Pandaan road in East Java and the Ungaran-Bawen road in Central Java). 

Jasa Marga is looking to facilitate up to 1.2 billion vehicle trips nationwide in 2013, 9.1 percent higher from the 1.1 billion vehicles last year.  80% of trips are on toll roads in greater Jakarta, indicating the sheer density of usage in that city.  Notable in the report is the roll out of the new e-Toll pass, which involves the use of a DSRC on-board unit, and a contactless smart card with prepaid credit that can be topped up.  Only 11% of transactions are at present using this technology, the intention is to lift this to 30% within two years.    Now the toll booths with this technology are not free flow, the tag activates the barrier arm, but the intention is to expand the number of toll booths that are electronically equipped to 111 by the end of 2013.   I would have thought that given the chronic congestion in Indonesia, lifting up take of electronic tolling to 50% of trips within two years should be a realistic goal.

Italy - Atlantia diversifies into airports

According to Reuters, Atlantia, Italy's largest toll road operator, is to buy Gemina, the airport operator best known for owning Aeroporti di Roma (which owns Rome's Fiumicino and Ciampino Airports).  The report said:

The deal will allow Atlantia, which also operates about 1,800 km of motorways in Brazil and Chile, to branch out into airport concessions in Latin America. It will not, however, generate meaningful cost synergies, a Milan-based analyst said.

USA - California- Santa Clarita (LA) looking at tolls to help fund new lanes

The website of radio station KHTS reports that Santa Clarita city (part of the LA metro area) is investigating whether to accelerate the widening of the I-5 freeway (the main northern freeway out of LA) between Highway 14 and Castaic by tolling the additional lanes.   The project would cost $310 million and the city has 75% of the funds needed to progress it (when divided over 30 years), and is hoping tolling the additional lanes may provide the remainder.  The proposal is to make the project into a PPP, with a private concessionaire recovering the cost over 35 years, using tolls on the new lanes only. The intention is for pricing to be dynamic maintaining a minimum speed of 45mph.  Curiously, the proposal maintains the HOT lane concept, by keeping the lanes free for vehicles with three or more occupants, which seems crazy if the key desire is to raise revenue.  The only purpose to keep HOT lanes is consistency, but beyond buses there is little good reason for new lanes to be free for any cars.   There is sense in applying the HOT principle if the lanes are underutilised HOV lanes, but why should well occupied cars occupying the same road space get access for free?  What evidence is there that this actually changes behaviour on any meaningful scale?  (besides a car with three people in it can split a toll three-ways surely)?

USA - Texas - Cintra wins concession for North Tarrant Express expansion

International Construction reports that Ferrovial subsidiary Cintra has won the concession to build the North Tarrant Express expansion in Texas.  Cintra is to be responsible for developing a 6.5 mile extension, with the state responsible for another 3.6 miles, but Cintra responsible for the tolling, operation and maintenance of the lot, with the total cost of both segments being US$1.38 billion.   The contract involves building two new managed lanes which will be tolled, but also the maintenance and operation of the untolled lanes.

The report says that "the Cintra-led consortium, NTE Mobility Partners Segments 3 LLC, also involves Meridiam Infrastructure and Dallas Police and Fire Pension System"

HOT lanes open in LA and Virginia

In the world of road pricing, HOT lanes are a peculiarly US answer to the problem of poor pricing of highways.  With the exception of Israel, you wont find HOT lanes anywhere else, largely because the case for HOT lanes is usually based on getting better utilisation of existing HOV lanes by tolling single occupancy vehicles.  Rare is the case that it is economically efficient or financially viable to charge for new lanes, because outside peak times few people will use them, and so the assets remain barely used and not generating much net revenue.  As a result, they tend to be cross-subsidised to reflect the fact that new HOT lanes benefit the users of untolled lanes, by merely shifting demand over to those lanes.  The LA pilot that has been launched is funded by a $210 million federal transportation grant and $80 million from LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority.  

HOT lanes are appealing to politicians because they retain a measure of choice, motorists can pay to bypass congestion or can remain in congestion.  The retention of the poorly targeted HOV component (whereby vehicle occupancy is somehow seen as a blunt measure of better use of road space) is a political sop that does little besides reward families, couples and the handful of people who may work together and live in sufficient proximity to make it worthwhile.  In all those cases I take the view that if 2 or more people value an uncongested trip, they can split the cost of the toll.

Los Angeles

I've written before about the Los Angeles project, with a description here as it comprises two sets of dedicated lanes on major corridors to the south and east of downtown LA.  It is essentially a piloting of HOT lanes for the city, launched whilst the city region is on the cusp of selecting a contractor to undertake a study for a far more extensive network of "express lanes" (Peter Samuel describes why the term Express Lanes is a misnomer).

The key dimensions are:

- Two lanes each way acting as express lanes with specified access and egress points;

- All users, whether HOV or single occupancy vehicles must have a DSRC transponder, and declare how many people are in the vehicle.  Transponders require a $40 deposit, which becomes a credit to toll accounts;

- Tolls are dynamic, with prices rising and falling according to real time conditions on the HOT lanes.  Users pay the price declared at variable messaging signs located at access points.

- Prices are based on per mile usage of the HOT lanes, with a cap of $1.40 per mile being the maximum charged.  If the toll is at that price and the lanes operate at below 45 mph average for longer than 10 minutes, the lanes will be closed to new single occupancy tolled customers.  HOV users will retain free access;

- A low income assistance programme is included, offering transponders for free for selected users, but offering no discount on the toll (as use of the lanes remains optional);

- It is a one year pilot only.  What happens after one year is unclear, but presumably if it generates surplus revenue after operating costs, it may continue.

There have been extensive reports about the LA HOT lanes, which claim it will be a "culture shock" in a city that has had no tolled routes at all until now.

According to NBC Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is hoping the HOT lanes encourage commuters to think about their trips:

"We hope it changes commuter behavior in terms of getting people to really plan their trip before they start out," said Rick Jager, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Jager said the agency is encouraged that more than 30,000 drivers have already ordered transponders needed to enter the lanes, but he acknowledged that some motorists are resistant to the project.

The NBC report describes how motorists can open an account, it's worth noting that even HOV users must have a transponder, even though they need not pay.  They must simply flick a switch in the unit to "declare" it is a high occupancy vehicle, this is one way to deter casual usage:

Solo drivers may use the lanes but will have to pay a toll – from 25 cents to $1.40 per mile, with motorists paying more when traffic is heavier.

Carpoolers and motorcyclists can use the lanes for free, but all drivers must get a new switchable FasTrak transponder, ..., to use the lanes.

When traffic speeds fall below 45 mph for more than 10 minutes in the ExpressLanes, overhead signs will state "HOV Only," alerting solo drivers not to enter the restricted lanes, according Metro's The Source blog.

To obtain a transponder, drivers have to pay a $40 deposit that will go toward future tolls. They'll be billed a $3 monthly fee plus the cost of their tolls. Lower-income drivers can qualify for an "equity plan" that requires a $15 deposit and waives monthly fees.

There are several ways to open an account:

•  call 511 and say "ExpressLanes";
• go online at Metro's ExpressLanes website;
• go to Metro's storefront at 500 W. 190th Street in Gardena;
• go to Metro's customer service center at the new El Monte Station, 3501 Santa Anita Ave. in El Monte.

Violators who are caught in lanes wihtout a transponder by the California Highway Patrol could be issued a $341 ticket, Jager said. Cameras will take pictures of vehicle license plates for cars that don't have transponders, and the owner will be sent a bill, which could result in fines if not paid.

The transponder can be switched to signify one, two, or three or more occupants in the vehicle. It transmits a signal to an antenna above lanes, and the car is then tracked. Accounts are billed for miles driven.

More details on how it works can be obtained at the Metro Express Lanes website

That means that the transponder effectively means that in the longer term, the occupancy level may be raised to three, as one means of managing demand instead of simply raising tolls or in extreme cases banning non-HOV users.   In addition to the lanes, bus services on the corridors have been improved and all net revenues are to be invested in the corridors themselves by state law - although one would have thought the priority ought to be returning the money spend on the lanes in the first place.

The LA Times says:

Stephanie Wiggins, Metro's executive in charge of the program, said gross revenue from the 10 and 110 freeway toll lanes should total $18 million to $20 million a year. Program costs are not expected to exceed $10 million, and any extra revenue will be reinvested in transit or carpool improvements in the 110 and 10 freeway corridors.

Yet the costs are actually $290 million, which is being treated as a sunk cost of capital.  If HOT lanes are going to be promoted as a way of paying for new road capacity, not just a test of congestion pricing, then there needs to be some honesty about such costs.  It is, in fact, the primary reason such ideas get little traction outside the US.

The LA Times quotes Donald Shoup,  a professor of urban planning at UCLA, as saying that it is "about time", given the severity of congestion in LA.  The rest of the report tends to focus on existing users of the lanes who are upset they need to pay $40 deposit for a transponder to keep using them.   Yet it also reports opposition to the lanes for being "undemocratic", presumably the world would be more democratic if you didn't need to pay for what you use.

A New York Times article quotes Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation, who doesn't think it is a big deal:

"I'm not too optimistic about major, big results for the Los Angeles project... I hope I'm wrong. But I suspect that most of the users will be freebies. They won't collect very much revenue. And if only a small percentage of people are paying the charge, the impact on congestion is going to be small."

KCET TV has a TV news article describing the LA HOT lanes.

My view is that it is positive to expose users to pricing, particularly dynamic pricing based on maintaining minimum standards of service, but there needs to be a more hard-headed approach to wider implementation of such lanes.  The chief concerns of transport policy regarding highways in the US are lack of revenue to maintain and develop networks, and congestion.  This tool will help with the latter, but will not help with the former if it cannot generate net revenue over the capital costs of implementation.   In other words, there needs to be some business case honesty.  Hopefully the wider Los Angeles Express Value Choices study will deliver this.

Virginia

The I-495 express lanes have opened in Virginia, with the Washington Times describing how this large project is a major public-private partnership:

The 495 Express Lanes project cost $1.9 billion. Virginia paid $409 million, according to Mr. Titunik. The two companies in partnership with the state, Transurban — a company that develops toll roads with offices in Australia and New York — and Fluor — a Texas-based engineering and construction company with an office in Arlington — funded $349 million in private equity and also backed $1.2 billion in loans and bonds.The state paid $260 million for the replacement of aging infrastructure, including more than 50 bridges and overpasses, pedestrian walkways, arterial roads, soundwalls and ramps.

The two private companies will get the revenues from the tolls, but if the lanes are successful, the state will receive a cut. Mr. Titunik said that the money will be invested in maintenance.

So in short, the state has part paid for the project, and TransUrban is providing significantly equity.  A contrast to the government funded LA project, which is admittedly much smaller in scale and only a pilot.

I-495 express lanes have a HOV threshold of three occupants, and comprise 14 miles of dual carriageway express lanes along the corridor.   Tolls have no cap so can be raised as high as is necessary to maintain a minimum level of service of average speeds of 45mph, hardly surprising when you have to convince private investors to risk money.  Prices are expected to range between $1 and $6 depending on traffic volumes.

However, the introduction has been reported as being rather bumpy, as some people entered the lanes accidentally then tried to reverse to avoid paying the toll.   What's astonishing is clearly how little attention people pay to road signs.

TollRoadsNews has an excellent article (with a map) about the project including the teething troubles, with Peter Samuel saying:

The 495 Express Lanes are a first not in the dynamic pricing as such, but for using such pricing in a very ambitious and complicated format with so many entries and exits. Nowhere else is there a tollway-within-a-freeway like the 495 Express Lanes equipped entirely with dedicated on- and off-ramps, and a lot of them catering to shorter trips as well as longer. Most others force users to enter and exit via the free lanes, weaving across the traffic. Or else they are long 'pipes' catering only to long trips, so shorter distance travelers can't make use of them. Many others, also are not much more than conversion and upgrade of existing HOV lanes. 

Not so the NoVA Beltway Lanes. Nearly a billion dollars of investors' money has been put into a complete rebuild of this section of the Beltway expanding it from eight lanes to twelve. And it has new direct entries and exits completely separate from the free Beltway lanes around Tysons Corner. 

It's going to be a boon to commuters in northern Virginia but it remains to be seen if they can make enough money to justify the investors' investment.

I wholeheartedly agree.

WJLA also has a video news article about the project.

More details on LA HOT lanes project

In October 2012, Los Angeles will see the opening of the I-110 HOT lanes which I wrote about some months ago (including a map). At the time I said it would offer choice, providing an option for those willing to pay to bypass congestion, but it wouldn't be a cure-all palliative.

A new report from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin delivers some more details, but these inform for me some of my own key conclusions that are relevant across HOT lane projects:

- HOT lanes don't deliver much revenue, especially if they need significant capital investment to make them work;

- HOT lanes wont fix congestion, but they will provide another option;

- HOT lanes can deliver a reliable trip option, which some will value some of the time;

- HOT lanes can enhance utilisation of existing HOV/carpool lanes in probably the most efficient way possible;

- A road without HOV/carpool lanes is probably best not getting HOT lanes;

- Tolling new lanes is unlikely to be viable unless existing lanes are severely congested for very long periods of the day.

The new details include more information about pricing including a low income subsidy.

The report describes the HOT lane project as follows, including a description of current road conditions:

Carpool lanes on both the 10 and the 110 freeways will be converted into toll lanes, allowing solo drivers to ride them for between 25 cents to $1.40 a mile. A single commuter would pay up to $19 to travel the 10 carpool lane the entire way under the most trafficked conditions, said Stephanie Wiggins, executive officer in charge of the Congestion Reduction Initiative for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

In early November, MTA and Caltrans will open up the carpool lanes on an 11-mile north-south stretch of the 110 Freeway in Los Angeles from Adams Boulevard near USC to the 91 Freeway in Artesia. Then, early next year, they will launch the second phase on the 10 Freeway through the San Gabriel Valley, between Alameda Street near Union Station to the 605 Freeway, according to MTA and Caltrans.

Frustrated solo drivers travel about 17 mph from 5 to 9 a.m. westbound and 4 to 7 p.m. eastbound on the 10, often watching near-empty carpool lanes in their side-view mirrors. By expanding use of the lanes, congestion on the general-purpose lanes will be less, and some who choose to pay will get to work or home faster, she said.

So the logic is getting better use out of existing capacity by pricing that spare capacity to enable there to be a reliable lane that people can pay to use. Given some will do that, this will improve the flow on the existing lanes. Nobody will be worse off.

The single lanes are to be converted to two lanes each way, by narrowing lanes overall. This means the HOT lanes will literally be new capacity and be more attractive to motorists, although safety margins on hard shoulders will be reduced.

All vehicles using the lanes will need to have a tag, even those with multiple occupants. A switch on the tag will be available to declare whether the vehicle has one, two or more occupants, determining whether or not a toll is liable. Those without a tag will be ticketed. Again, there will be an interesting issue with enforcement of vehicles that involves detecting if people lie about vehicle occupancy, although having to get a tag does make it easier to identify those without a tag and to focus on vehicles lying about occupancy with a tag. Add to that the current HOV threshold of three people per vehicles at peak times, dropping to two off peak, and confusion is easy to envisage.

The HOT lanes are part of a wider programme which is costing US$210 million in Federal funding and involved a great deal of work on lane conversions and complementary improvements to public transport. However, the tolls have got another twist, a low income subsidy.

It is described on the website as this:

Residents of Los Angeles County with an annual household income (family of 3) at or below $37,060 will qualify for a $25 credit when they set up their account. This credit can then be applied to either the transponder deposit or pre-paid toll deposit. The monthly $3 account maintenance fee will also be waived.
In essence, the effect is to subsidise the opening and maintenance of the account. Curious indeed when you consider that the toll isn’t paid if you have more than two people in the car at peak times. However, I've not seen such a subsidy/discount based on income elsewhere (and I was involved in trying to develop one for the defunct Manchester congestion pricing scheme), so it will be interesting to see how successful this is.

The tolls themselves will range from US$0.25 to US$1.40 per mile, depending on demand, with pricing altering dynamically to ensure a minimum speed of operation on the lanes of 45 mph.

Average toll (end to end) for I-10 ExpressLanes is $6 (average trip is 9 miles). Average Toll (end to end) for I-110 ExpressLanes is $4 (average trip is 5 miles).

Interestingly, if tolls are at their maximum and speeds remain below 45mph, the lanes will be closed to paying users, meaning HOVs will have continued priority.

I'd be thinking about an alternative approach, in that in the longer term, HOV thresholds should be lifted so that priority is given to those who value this precious road space. After all, a car with four occupants can better afford to pay a toll than a car with one (or two if the HOV threshold is three).

However, the politics about this make this too difficult for now.

Also interesting is the absence of any discounts or exemptions for hybrid or other “environmentally friendly” vehicles (something I discussed some months ago). This is about congestion, not emissions (and the likely impact of such a discount or exemption is not going to be to measurably increase usage or ownership of such vehicles).

A loyalty programme is also to be used, which of course is contrary to the oft-cited public policy objective of not encouraging people to drive. I haven't yet obtained details on this.

Gross revenues of around US$20 million per annum are expected from the lanes, which will help pay for their ongoing operations, with net revenues required to be reinvested in further improvements. However, when you consider the programme is costing ten times that, you can see that it isn’t exactly an enormous return. This isn’t a way for cities to make a lot of new revenue, but it is a way to get better use out of existing facilities, and it provides a new option for motorists which will deliver them value.

However, it does take an existing underutilised resource and get more out of it, it also provides utility for those willing to pay for it. Effectively a choice between publicly provided free lanes and premium lanes, so those who value time can pay for the scarcity of the road “resource”. Presenting that concept to motorists is valuable in itself.

Finally, there is one useful resource on the official website. A list of current and planned US HOT lanes.

LA considers removing green car exemption from HOV and HOT lanes

For some years electric and certain alternative fueled vehicles have been allowed to use HOV lanes in LA with only one occupant. The obvious reason was to promote more environmentally friendly vehicles. However, the LA Times reports of plans that two of the busiest HOV lanes are to remove this exemption once they get converted to HOT lanes. The HOT lanes will only be untolled for buses and high occupancy vehicles. Low emission vehicles will have to pay the toll, like any other single occupancy vehicles.

I wrote some months ago (including a map) of the LA HOT lane trial, which could be the first step towards a city wide network of such lanes.

The report states that Stephanie Wiggins of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said: that on the southbound 110 during afternoon rush hour, hybrids and natural gas vehicles accounted for almost 1 in 5 vehicles in the carpool lane.

In other words, 20% of lane use is "green" vehicles.  If the lanes are meant to be free flowing and to encourage car sharing, they can't also support incentives to own green vehicles.  Too many objectives can end up with conflicts.

Obviously, this will upset owners of such vehicles.  However, their cause is not helped by what was reportedly said by John Boesel, chief executive of Calstart, "a clean-transportation technology trade group in Pasadena".  He claimed, oddly, that:

In London, which has pioneered such "congestion pricing" efforts, drivers of clean-fuel vehicles pay nothing or deeply discounted rates to use carpool lanes, and that is driving the purchase of electric and other clean fuel vehicles in that city,

Firstly, London is not the pioneer, it was Singapore.  Secondly, London has no carpool lanes.  Thirdly, the congestion charge does have a 100% exemption for the lowest emission vehicles, but this no longer includes older-generation hybrids.  It would be incorrect to claim this drives the purchase of such vehicles, as the other incentives include zero vehicle excise duty, free parking and the very high price of fuel in the UK.   Such measures may be worthy of consideration in California.

Stockholm by contrast, is phasing out exemptions for "green vehicles" from its congestion charge.

The interest in promoting environmentally friendly vehicles is understandable, and such vehicles already have a major gain by not paying fuel taxes.  It is conceivable that such vehicles could have discounts on HOT lanes, but it makes sense to not have three classes of vehicles that gain access - HOVs, those who pay tolls and those that are "environmentally friendly".  It makes enforcement expensive and complex, and so HOT lanes should be developed with the intention of relieving congestion, and let policies be developed separately to incentivise environmentally friendly vehicles.  

LA follows San Francisco with variable parking pricing trial

I reported in July about San Francisco’s innovative intelligent parking trial called SF Park. It means that kerbside parking in a part of downtown San Francisco is now subject to a form of dynamic pricing whereby the prices are set to ensure that parking is always available on every block. As a result, prices at times of highest demand are set higher than at other times. Prices are not truly dynamic, but are varied monthly.

Los Angeles is about to trial the very same in downtown LA according to the LA Times and Streetsblog (which both have useful articles about the concept). It is to be called ExpressPark. 

The website says:

A 4.5-square-mile area in Downtown will support ExpressPark™, a one-year pilot program that will infuse technology and demand-based pricing into an innovative parking management strategy. Created with $15 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation and $3.5 million in City funds, the project will test ways technology can help the City realize its goals to increase the availability of limited parking spaces, reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. ExpressPark™, one component of the Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration, is set to operate beginning Spring 2012.

The LA Times says it “will use not only new meters but also a network of wireless pavement sensors to keep track of parked vehicles in real time. The sensors will help transportation officials determine which meters are in use and which have expired. Eventually, roadside signs will guide motorists to empty spaces in municipal parking garages and lots.

In other words, when parking demand increases, meter rates increase; when demand drops, rates drop.” …"What we're striving for is pricing such that 85% of meters are occupied and 15% are open," said Peer Ghent, senior management analyst with the meter operations division of the city's Department of Transportation, or LADOT.

Good stuff, it combines maximising availability of parking for businesses located in the city and for those seeking a park, while reducing congestion because it eliminates those circulating for long periods looking for parks, as well as deterring those driving at times of peak demand. 

Area of LA parking pricing trial

5,500 on street metered spaces and 7,500 unmetered public spaces in off-street city owned parks are included in the trial. 

The LA Times continues:

Meter rates downtown now range from $1 to $4 an hour. Under the ExpressPark pilot, the prices would be adjusted, probably once a month, but would rise or fall no more than 50% at a time, officials say. Bruce Gillman, an LADOT spokesman, said the city took in $33 million from parking meters in the most recent fiscal year. What effect ExpressPark will have is unknown because revenue will rise in some areas and shrink in others.

The new pay stations and meters popping up throughout the city are harder to thwart. Even if the coin slot is clogged, motorists have the option of paying by credit card. It will no longer do to place a plastic bag over a broken meter and pray.

The interview with UCLA Professor Donald Shoup in Streetsblog about the project was most interesting.

Some of his points include:

- If ExpressPark is eventually extended to other parts of the city,I think many meter rates will go down. Two years ago the city doubled meter rates everywhere, and I’ve since seen entire blocks where there isn’t a single car parked at a meter. The prices should come down on these blocks. In other words, the city applying a purely administrative approach to setting prices has proven ineffective, this approach should be optimal for utilisation, and potentially revenue.

- Pasadena returns all of its meter revenue to pay for added public services in the metered neighborhoods, and Old Pasadena is a good example of the benefits. Old Pasadena was until the 1980s a commercial skid row and now it is one of the most popular shopping destinations in Southern California. Parking meter revenue helps to explain that success. The meters, which were installed in Old Pasadena in 1993, bring in $1 million a year to spend on in added public services in just that little shopping district. The meter money paid to replace all the sidewalks, streetlights, street trees, and street furniture. It paid to clean up the alleys and put electric wires underground. The meter money also pays to pressure wash the sidewalks twice a month and to provide added police services. If LA adopted Pasadena’s parking meter policy, all of our business districts would be much more prosperous. Residents of LA would not have to go to Pasadena or Santa Monica or Culver City to walk around in clean and safe environments.

Basically hypothecated parking revenue being recirculated into improving the entire road corridor environment for all users.  It can fix road surfaces, lines, signs, traffic signals, lighting, street furniture and facilities for pedestrians.  It is crucial in my view that if parking pricing is to be adopted, that those paying and those living and working in the zone should see direct benefits from the revenue raised.

- San Francisco started its program, called SFpark, this year and last month it made the first price adjustments based on occupancy rates. Prices stayed just the same for 37 percent of the meters, increased for 32 percent, and decreased for 31 percent.  Which simply indicates how difficult it is to predict demand accurately!

- The main problem we already have in L.A. is the widespread abuse of handicapped placards. A disabled placard in California is like a “free parking” pass for the entire state. One of our students just finished his Masters thesis on placard abuse in downtown. He surveyed one block on Flower Street where there are 14 metered parking spaces. Most of the spaces were filled most of the time with cars that had disabled placards. For five hours of the day, all fourteen spaces were occupied by cars with disabled placards. A problem not unknown elsewhere. In the UK it is the "blue badge" problem. Finding a solution to the holes in disabled parking schemes needs to be a parking policy priority.

- Shoud concludes "The poorest people can’t afford cars, and they won’t pay anything for Express Park. Their lives will improve because the city will have more money to pay for public services and the bus system will run better. The buses that they ride in won’t be mired in traffic caused by cars cruising for parking."

Quite.  It will be interesting to see if both San Francisco and LA encourage other cities to be cleverer about parking pricing and technology.  In the absence of congestion pricing (and indeed even with it), it provides a fascinating solution to the problem of optimising parking use, and reducing vehicle circulation by those seeking parking spaces.  The next step forward is surely pricing that is dynamic by the hour, not the month, with mobile phone applications that enable prices to be instantly available, or even for spaces to be booked?

LA takes the first bold step towards congestion pricing

For those of us who have worked in the road pricing/tolling field for some time, the economics behind pricing road space to manage congestion are obvious. The tools to enable it to be done efficiently have long been in operation, when one wants to charge for individual points on the network (as in Singapore) or create inner city cordons or areas (like Stockholm and London). For higher density cities with intensive public transport and busy city centres, such approaches to congestion charging can deliver substantial benefits. However, for cities where employment and traffic patterns are far more dispersed, it is quite different. 

Such is Los Angeles. 3% of employment is located in the downtown CBD, so most commuting patterns involve people travelling by car in a criss cross of motions between residential and commercial locations across the metropolis. A LA has grown as a city, this has become the typical pattern of there NOT being patterns and dominant origin/destination pairs.  

Transport policy in Los Angeles has gone through several eras.  Of course it is the location of the so-called Great American Streetcar Scandal, which is itself controversial (as some say it was only a matter of time anyway).  Until the late 1970s, Los Angeles followed a "predict and provide" model for roads, building an extensive freeway network to connect the metropolis.  However, this could not keep pace with demand, and the second strategy - public funding of public transport came next, with LA Metro rail both in subway and light rail forms.  That also had next to no impact and suffered colossal budgetary overruns.  So the strategy now is HOT lanes.

LA HOT lane trial

Tollroadsnews has an excellent article summarising where this project has got to.  Two significant stretches of highway are involved.  The I-10 will use an existing HOV lane and the hard shoulder to create two lanes in each direction. The I-110 already has this as HOV lanes.   Pricing will be distance based, according to crossing set points on these highways, at prices ranging from 25c to $1.40 per mile.

The lanes will be dynamically priced in real time to maintain a minimum speed of 45 mph, with the use of a DSRC based tag system for ALL users of the lanes (including high occupancy vehicles).   It is curious that all those involved in the design and development seem rather new to this type of system, I wonder how they will manage the risks.

Buses will be free and trucks will not be allowed to access the lanes, which is a shame, but probably reflects the I-10 lanes being substandard for wider vehicles.

Full details of the project are on the official website here with maps.

Tollroadsnews is supportive of this step as "Fuel taxes have got us where we are today - wasting billions of hours and dollars sitting in traffic. The taxes as a a major financing mechanism are the problem.

The solution is in making highways self-financing, direct-charge operations, managed one by one for efficient operations by operators forced to make a living selling a road service. In a small but important way that's what LA's toll lanes are experimenting with".

However, another perspective is from Streetsblog Los Angeles, which tends to be a environmentalist/anti-car view.  It doesn't like it because " there is nothing in the congestion pricing plan that encourages people to drive less.  The plan removes no current drivers from the current car pool lane, even "HOV-2" vehicles at any point.  Then taking the "congestion" out of congestion pricing, the lane will actually be closed to paying vehicles during the most congested periods.  In other words, this plan will not effect traffic during the most congested periods."

Certainly this project wont fix LA's congestion, but it is seen as a pilot trial for something that could be extended across much of the LA freeway network.  HOV lanes have had their day and I've never been a strong supporter of them, as they do not reward much other than fortuitous multiple occupancy of vehicles (families etc).   My answer to Streetsblog is that the HOV component of this should be phased out over time.  If prices at the maximum level don't do the job, I'd argue that the HOV threshold should be raised to  3+ and 4+ (and progressively until it is effectively only giving buses a free ride).  The choice remains, and the benefits to users will be obvious.  It means those who value time can choose a fast trip, while others can take their chances with the existing route.  This will dissuade motorists and reduce congestion.  However it will disappoint Streetsblog LA because it isn't designed to discourage driving, but to get more efficient use of the road network.  That does mean rationing of HOV users in due course as the only ones not price sensitive.

Some Streetblog commentators think LA should have a London/Stockholm style congestion charge, which of course simply wouldn't work.  The long term solution is to shift from fuel tax to distance, time and place based charging.

What this project will demonstrate is how pricing can work.  Despite socialist and conservative critics, the untolled lanes remain as a choice.  The HOT lanes offer people a choice to avoid congestion either by having three passengers or paying, and it should guarantee a minimum level of service so for the first time, two LA highways will actually have trip reliability built into their operations.  That is a significant step forward.   

A network of toll lanes would be a major leap forward in changing how LA transport works, because the choice offered would be a premium service that will meet needs that will vary from day to day.  

It wont fix congestion, as this will remain on the parallel lanes and on roads that cannot be feasibly segregated, but that is for another day.  That is for a more widespread revolution in how Californians pay for road use.

For now, it is relieving congestion for those willing to pay on two key routes.  Let's hope it is a stunning success, as it provides one approach, particularly well suited to lower density new world cities, which have the space to build or convert lanes on major highways to tolled use.

More HOT lanes for Los Angeles?

According to the L.A. Times, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority has produced a study recommending further investigation into converting HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes on five sections of highway into HOT (High Occupancy and Toll) lanes.  

Demonstration projects for HOT lanes are being implemented already on two stretches of highway (14 miles of I-10 from Alameda Street to the 605 and on 11 miles of the 110 from Adams Boulevard to the Artesia Transit Center at 182nd Street).   

The philosophy is simple, it is about getting better use out of under-utilised HOV lanes.

For the uninitiated, HOV lanes are lanes set aside for vehicles with multiple occupants, otherwise known as carpool lanes or transit lanes.  The economics behind this being that it is a more efficient use of roadspace for a vehicle to carry 2 or more people than simply one, and if there were efficient road pricing, the value of time of occupants of such vehicles would tend to give them priority.   The problem with HOV lanes is that many HOV trips are opportunistic, in that people will do them anyway.  Couples, families and taxi trips are not car journeys undertaken by people who would otherwise have taken two cars in many cases.   Real carpooling remains very much a minority activity.

As a result, many HOV lanes have excess capacity which can be utilised if converted to HOT lanes.  Single occupancy vehicles can be tolled to use the lane (to ensure it remains free flowing) dynamically using DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications) technology, whereas multiple occupancy vehicles can still travel "free".

Let's be clear, congestion charging it is not, but it is pricing a lane for certain users, which is positive as it provides choice and comparison between what pricing can do and what "unpriced" lanes are.   By offering a free flow corridor it is an improvement, and provides a choice.

The interesting part of the LA experiment will be that lanes will be priced dynamically, so the price will go up as demand increases, so that free flow conditions are maintained. 

LA Streetsblog has looked at the official report which indicates that "Every corridor was rated on connectivity, constructability, transit benefits and revenue potential" which would appear to mean not only practicability of introducing free flow tolling on the lanes, but also some money could be made from it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some surplus revenue, taking into account operating costs and the capital costs of tolling in the first place.   However, the revenue will not be significant on this scale.   The real benefit is economic, in allowing existing road space to be better utilised it could form the basis for a wider network of such lanes. 

Of course the longer term question with HOT lanes is whether they are sustainable in the face of rising demand.   Tradeoffs will need to be made between increasing prices, tightening the HOV rules and providing additional capacity.  At what point will it be that higher prices are such that second people are carried in vehicles just to avoid the toll (so the HOV threshold should be raised to three), and ultimately when do such lanes end up having to be toll only (which by any measure of rational economics, they should be).

UPDATE:  San Gabriel Valley Tribune gives a lukewarm endorsement to toll lanes, but fears privately owned toll highways.  The question that could be asked is whether it would object to them if they were new roads.