1. Express Toll Lane Networks: Better Transportation for Drivers and Transit Users By Robert W. Poole, Jr. Director of Transportation Studies Reason Public Policy Institute

2. Congestion: Still Getting Worse z Annual cost = $63 billion in top 85 urban areas, an all-time high. z Has grown every year since TTI began doing studies. z This is despite major investment in HOV lanes and transit. z Only 11.2% carpooled to work in 2000, vs. 13.4% in 1990. z Only 4.73% rode transit to work in 2000, vs. 5.27% in 1990.

3. New Highway Capacity Can Help TTI data show that cities that kept highway capacity in step with traffic growth did best with congestion z Anchorage, Charleston, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and Tampa expanded capacity, had smallest growth in congestion. z 25 other urban areas had worse congestion increase, as traffic significantly outpaced capacity. z 45 added very little capacity; had drastic congestion increase.

4. But New Lanes Are Very Costly z Urban expressway lanes often cost $5M to $10M/lane-mile. z Elevated urban lanes cost 3 times that much. z Cost to build, operate, and maintain works out to 19 to 90 cents/mile. z But gas tax yields 2 to 3 cents/mile.

5. New Approach: Managed Lanes z HOV lanes were early form of managed lanes— but most have excess capacity. z Exclusive busways are another form—but also have much excess capacity. z HOT lanes sell excess capacity, charging market price. z HOT Networks combine HOT lanes and Bus Rapid Transit. z Express Toll Lanes are another form of Managed Lanes. z ETL Networks are networks of Express Toll Lanes.

6. Managed Lane Projects, 2004

7. HOT Lanes z Initial idea: sell the excess capacity to paying motorists. z Four in operation: Houston (2), San Diego, and Orange County, CA. z Variable pricing works: use all capacity, free-flow at rush hour. z On 91 Express Lanes, they handle 40% of freeway’s traffic with 33% of capacity, at rush hour. z Plans under way in a dozen metro areas. z But for new capacity, free passage for HOV-2s cuts heavily into needed revenue.

8. Express Toll Lanes (ETLs) z All cars pay market-priced toll. z Super-HOVs go free (buses, van-pools) z Emergency vehicles go free (police, fire, ambulance) z First project under way in Tampa. z Being studied for Denver, Miami, Orlando, Maryland, Texas. z Called “FAST Lanes” in House reauthorization bill.

9. Bus Rapid Transit z Frequent express bus service in special lanes. z Can be comparable to light rail, but considerably lower cost (GAO). z Strong support from FTA. z Very costly to transit agency if in dedicated lanes. z Much less costly if operated in HOT lanes or ETLs, because paying drivers pay for much of the infrastructure.

10. Definition of ETL-BRT Network z Interconnected set of limited-access lanes on urban freeway system. z Buses and vanpools use at no charge; all others pay. z Variable pricing, a la I-15, all ETC. z Composed of existing HOV plus new links and interchange connectors. z Many one lane each way with central Jersey barrier; but some (a) two-lane reversible and others (b) two lanes each way.

11. Advantages of Network z Congestion-insurance for all drivers, when they really need it. z Greater person throughput than nearly all HOV lanes, thanks to z express bus service (offsets loss of free HOV-2s) z paying vehicles making use of currently unused capacity z seamless network offers more time-saving than HOV fragments z Partly self-funding—a major advantage. z Ease of enforcement—all-electronic. Either has a valid transponder and account or not.

12. Comparative Throughput of HOV Lanes and ETL Network Typ. HOV-2 Typ. HOV-3 Ideal HOV-3 ETL Network SOVs (avg 1.1/veh)0001100 HOV-2s (avg 2.1/veh)78800300 HOV-3s (avg 3.2/veh)1503501200200 Vanpool (avg 7.0/veh) 1020 60 Express bus (avg 35/veh) 2340 Vehicles/hr.95037312601700 Persons/hr.2275136553804300

13. Reason Modeled Eight Metro Area Networks z The eight most-congested metro areas (except NYC) z Los Angeles/Orange County z San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland z Washington, DC z Seattle z Houston z Dallas z Atlanta z Miami

14. Modeling Eight Metro Area Networks z For each metro area, we began with MPO’s long-range transportation plan (unconstrained) z Existing HOVs and connectors z Planned HOVs and connectors z We added: missing links (elevated or at-grade) z We added: missing connector quadrants

15. Miami ETL Network

16. Los Angeles ETL Network

17. Capital Cost Estimates z Construction of new lanes (surface + elevated) z Construction of flyover connectors at interchanges z Conversion of existing HOV to ETL z Total cost: from $2.7 billion (Miami) to $10.8 billion (Los Angeles)

18. Revenue Estimates z For peak direction at rush hour, assumed max of 1700 veh/hr, and max of 1600 paying veh/hr. (Provides for 100 buses and vanpools/lane/hr.) z Peak-period, peak-direction toll varied from 35 cents/mi in Miami to 40 cents/mi in LA. z Non-peak direction toll was one-third to one-half of that. z Much lower off-peak price for off-peak hours, holidays, and weekends.

19. Financing ETL Networks z Toll revenue bonds based on the revenue stream. z Simple rule of thumb: 10 X the annual baseline revenue = amount that could be raised. z Conservative, since revenue profile will be much steeper over the life of the bonds than for most toll roads. z Compared amount raised with the cost of build-out. z Overall, revenue bonds cover 67% of cost. z Individual cities range from 43% (Miami) to 93% (San Francisco)

20. A Win-Win Proposition z Transit riders get region-wide express bus service. z All motorists get “congestion insurance” on entire freeway system. z Users of regular lanes encounter somewhat less congestion. z Paying drivers on Network gain time savings and reliability. z Taxpayers get improved transportation system without higher taxes.

21. The “Lexus Lane” Issue Issue #1: Tolling is “regressive” z Key question is: compared to what? z Fuel taxes are regressive z Transportation sales taxes are regressive z With ETLs, only the users pay (and only auto users, since vans and buses go free)

22. Lexus Lanes, cont. #2 Price/Quality choices are available everywhere else; why not on highways? z Private sector: airlines, telephones, restaurants z Public sector: Amtrak, Postal Service

23. Lexus Lanes, cont. #3 People of all income levels use managed lanes for high-priority trips z San Diego and Orange County data, 6 and 8 years worth z Mother picking up kids from day care z Gardener reaching one more client z Family getting to airport on time z It’s not 10% of the people using the lanes all the time; rather, 90% of people using them 10% of the time.

24. Lexus Lanes, cont. #4 Transit can be a major beneficiary of Managed Lanes z Express bus service can be guaranteed access and time savings. z Speed and reliability are sustainable long- term, unlike with HOV lanes. z Transit providers must be brought on board early, as in Houston.

25. Lexus Lanes, concluded z #5 People overwhelmingly like this option, once they experience it. z In San Diego, 80% of users and 60% of non-users think Managed Lanes are fair, effective, and the best way to improve mobility on I-15. z Results hold for all income levels, ethnic groups, and age groups. z Key phrasing: do you favor or oppose having a time-saving option in this corridor?

26. Conclusion z For costly urban lane additions, we need to get maximum value for the investment. z Express Toll Lanes can be paid for largely or entirely with tolls. z Express Toll Lanes permit higher throughput of people, vehicles, or goods: z ETLs have much greater throughput, at 65 mph, at rush hour. z ETLs become “virtual busways” for Bus Rapid Transit.