We Can No Longer Afford to Give Away Highway Lanes to Carpools and Low-Emission Vehicles
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and Carpool Lanes promote congestion, while benefiting few commuters. Charging tolls rather than using HOV lanes will reduce traffic while bringing in much needed transportation funding.
Road space is becoming a scarce commodity in America's metropolitan areas and there are few prospects of significantly increasing highway capacity except at an exorbitant cost. Can we afford to give away a portion of this valuable resource in the form of lanes exclusively reserved for carpools? And should we extend this give-away to low-emission vehicles, as called for in the Administration's and House surface transportation reauthorization bills and in proposed California legislation (AB 2628)?
Most certainly not, says Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute in a recent commentary in Public Works Financing ("Rethinking HOV and HOT Lanes," May 2004). "America faces twin crises in urban transportation: a congestion crisis and a funding crisis. Express Toll Lanes that give every driver a congestion-relief alternative on major expressways could address both crises," asserts Poole. But this solution, he says, risks being compromised if we dedicate highway lanes to special classes of drivers or vehicles.
I agree. The original rationale for giving priority to carpoolers was to conserve fuel. But today, with the number of carpoolers dwindling and with the remaining carpools largely among family members (who would share a ride with or without an HOV incentive), reserving this valuable space for such a relatively small band of commuters simply makes no sense. Evidence from California's express toll lanes shows that drivers are willing to pay 50-60 cents per mile for the privilege of traveling in congestion-free lanes. Express Toll Lanes thus offer a potential to generate millions of dollars in toll revenue -- money that could be used to supplement the gas tax and improve our highways and transit service.
As for letting low-emission vehicles to use HOV lanes for free, "it's crazy to give away this valuable space to people who would be buying hybrids anyway," says Poole. Hybrids are already selling very well, with long waiting lists and in some case at premium prices. The California Air Resources Board estimates that 55,000 hybrid vehicles will be on California highways by 2007 -- with or without the HOV incentive. Letting 55,000 hybrids into Express Toll Lanes for free would quickly fill up those lanes, deprive motorists of a congestion-free alternative and foreclose the opportunity to provide regional express bus service.
There are some indications that transportation officials are rethinking the notion that carpools should get free access to new express toll lanes. The state of Maryland intends to charge all vehicles without exception on its proposed Express Toll Lane network. (See "Maryland's Express Toll Lanes: A Giant Step Forward," Innovation Briefs, June 2004).
There are some good reasons for doing so, argues Poole. First, giving away part of the toll lane capacity to free carpools might make such lanes unable to generate enough revenues to pay for their construction. Secondly, charging all vehicles does away with the problem and expense of enforcing car occupancy requirements and drastically reduces the number of potential violators. Every vehicle using Express Toll Lanes (with a possible exception of transit buses) would be obliged to have a transponder. A vehicle without one would be easily identified, videotaped and assessed a fine, as is currently done on facilities equipped with E-Z pass or other electronic toll collection technology.
Yes, encouraging ridesharing and low-emission vehicles are worthy public policy goals. But should they take precedence over congestion relief and generation of badly needed highway funds? We join Bob Poole in saying it is time for a serious debate on this issue.
C. Kenneth Orski is editor and publisher of Innovation Briefs, an influential and widely read bimonthly publication reporting on surface transportation developments. He also heads the Urban Mobility Corporation, a Washington-based consulting firm specializing in transportation management and technology transfer. A former Associate Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, he was a member of President George W. Bush's transportation transition team.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
There are currently no posts in this category.
Planetizen picks
Contribute
- The Benefits of Creating Hybrid Zoning Codes
- The Appeal of In-Town Big Box
- The Growing Appeal of Drinking From the Toilet
- How and Why Does an Architect Become Famous?
- Could Good Design Have Prevented the Housing Crisis?
- NY Times Defends the Port Authority
- Expanding the Hong Kong Subway, One Blast at a Time
- Can An Electric Bike Replace A Car?
- The Growing Popularity of Women-Only Mass Transit
- Putting the Bloom Back on the Rose Bowl
Volunteerism Plays Critical Role in Reaching World’s Millennium Development Goals
Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University
Feb 10, 2012
www.flickr.com
|
Equity Anyone?
What about equity issues? Sure, it would be a good idea to provide toll lanes instead of HOV lanes, but there has been no discussion so far regarding the equity issues. How would persons of low-income pay for these Lexus lanes?
where's the Incentives?
The whole reason behind HOV and HOT lanes in the first place was as an incentive to reduce consumption and/or pollution. There can and should still be an incentive or reward for those who do reduce - give free transponders and free accounts (at least reduced costs) to those registered vehicles that meet criteria set forth as low-emission or high mileage (hybrids, electric, etc).
Removing the incentive altogether just because "people will buy hybrids anyway" is punishing those who are doing their part to conserve instead of reqarding good behavior. There are those of us who cannot afford to buy hybrids yet but if we could, the free tolls would be a relief from the high car payments. Not everyone can afford $20,000 cars, especially those who cannot afford to live close to their jobs. Thinking of only the middle class and forgetting the working class will not solve our transportation issues.
This is why I worry about BRT
Many HOV lanes were sold as a way to help the environment, but I always suspected they were really proposed as a way to add highway capacity without environmental opposition, and later convert them to SOV use. That is why I am suspicious of the strong support for bus ways and dedicated lane BRT by advocates of highways. I fear that it is not about better performing transit at all, but about getting more highway capacity approved with transit funds then opening it up to cars with one person on board.
That said, I have always advocated pricing strategies for roads. They are underpriced, and pricing them can be handled in a way that generates funding for alternatives and offers lifeline prices for low income commuters. I think it needs to be approached sustematically, as in central London, though, and as a system management strategy rather than a means of paying for new roads that contractors want to build that would otherwise not be undertaken.
Better use of lanes
Highways have only paid from themselves because they have access to funding from the gasoline tax. If gas tax money were diverted to other froms of transit, bus rapid transit for example, then they could pay for themselves as well.
Convert the lanes to BRT lanes, avoid the cost of rail, heavy or light, and get more people out of cars and onto mass transit.
Sad but true
Despite its optimistic potential, carpooling has not had the impact it could have, and the impact is likely to decrease as metropolitan areas and job centers become more and more dispersed. Some more effective ways to encourage carpooling would be to concentrate jobs and housing in higher-density areas (not necessarily just in downtowns) and to limit or eliminate free parking. Reducing your commute from 60 to 45 minutes each way because you can ride in the HOV lanes is not as big an incentive to carpool as having to pay $100 or more a month to park at work. As far as encouraging more fuel-efficient and less-polluting cars, an increased gas-guzzler tax and an efficency rebate would steer people towards more efficient cars, like France is doing right now. People who don't care about the environment do care about their pocketbooks, and if these fees vs. rebates could save them several thousand dollars, they would be much more inclined to purchase greener cars. Most of the thoughts about which car to buy happen on dealers' lots, and taxes and fees can make a big impact at the time of purchase. The highway system is overburdened enough trying to do its own job. Given its current severe undercapacity, it shouldn't have the additional strain of being a social engineering tool. It's the wrong tool for the job - it's hard to screw in a screw with a hammer.
HOT Lane Capacity
I agree with Mr. Orski's rationale that HOV lanes shouldn't be compromised by allowing hybrid vehicles ito them without more than one passenger. There are likely to be millions of hybrids on the road during the next several years, particularly if Ford, GM, and others follow through on their claims they will be selling hybrid SUVs and other vehicles within 12 to 24 months.
On the other hand, I see Robert Poole's proposals for "HOT Lanes" to be a low capacity solution in search of a problem. The several billion dollars in tax money over and above the alleged fundings that could be gained from tolls that Poole advocates be spent on HOT lanes would be better spent on significantly increasing transit capacity. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, this capacity would be better spent expanding the mainline capacity of BART, e.g., things such as a 4th track through downtown Oakland, express tracks in selected locations, key stations reconfigured with four tracks allowing express trains to pass slower locals, expansion of fare gate and escaltor capacity, etc. Even at BART "heavy rail" prices, such transit capacity expansion would be 8-10 times as cost effective, e.g., with 8-10 times the capacity, as a "HOT lane" that can carry only about 2,000 vehicles per hour.
Why "throw away" limited funding and capacity on "solutons" that will carry only 1 person per car? Orski and Poole have a truly odd view of things, particularly by world standards. I am certain that the Japanese and Europeans would scoff at yet another example of Yankee folly and quest for unproven "magic bullets", given their familiarity and universally proven track records with transit--particularly rail--something only few Yankees have any clues about.
Well not quite
Well I can't say I agree, although I welcome the discussion. One huge problem is that the Carpool lanes have not kept up with the rapid outward sprawl of our cities. This writer only looks at the "urban" problems not the suburban or even rural traffic congestion problems that California faces. To atempt to address the transportation problem in California without addressing the forces causing sprawl and interregional communting is a quite recipe for failure.