Comments on HOT lanes and the Arlington lawsuit, part 2: Slow down - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Rich

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:23:04 EDT

Lance/Rich toll lanes

I'm not sure why you're putting my name on the idea. I didn't suggest that Virginia's HOT lanes should instead be converted into toll-only lanes ("Express Toll Lanes"), which is what Lance suggested. I was just addressing his comment. I don't really have an opinion on Maryland's Express Toll Lane project on I-95 because I don't live in the Baltimore area and because when I drive northeast, I tend to avoid I-95 through there due to the roadwork and the congestion. (I'll be interested in seeing how the project works out when the lanes open, of course.) I simply thought it was important to note that what he was suggesting is in fact something that is being tried somewhere not too far from the DC area (although the construction is not yet complete).

Do a Google search for "I-95 Maryland express toll lanes" if you want to find out more about it.

Comment by charlie

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:14:23 EDT

A major reason for not switching to the Lance/Rich toll lanes has something to do with federal money being available for roads that have a HOV/buslane.

Comment by Froggie

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:05:59 EDT

What Lance suggests and Rich discusses is, simply put, toll lanes. Period.

Comment by Rich

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:01:36 EDT

Lance's proposal is essentially what Maryland is building on I-95 northeast of Baltimore (and has proposed on I-270 from where it narrows to two lanes per side on up to Frederick): "Express Toll Lanes." Another way to think of ETLs is as HOT lanes without the "HO" aspect--that is, there is no exemption for carpools, so if you want to use the express lanes, you pay a toll, the amount of which varies in the same way it does in HOT lanes.

I suppose one might argue that making everyone pay INCREASES the "HO" aspect of the lanes, of course. :-)

I believe no US jurisdiction has opened any ETLs yet--Maryland is to be the first. There are quite a few HOT lanes around, but no full-time "Express Toll Lanes."

Regardless of what happens with the HOT project, I think anyone who thinks HOV on Shirley Highway is not effective at taking cars off the road should drive down to the Prince William Parkway interchange at lunchtime some weekday afternoon. There is a large park-and-ride facility there. 95% of the cars parked there belong to slugs who parked and got rides from other people. (The same thing is true for the Metrorail, BTW, if you look at how many cars are parked at Vienna, Franconia-Springfield, or Branch Avenue, to name but three--consider how it would be if you then dumped all those cars onto the road as well.)

Comment by MLD

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:51:51 EDT

@Lance

...and now you've turned HOT lanes into actual Lexus Lanes instead of, you know, something that encourages people to produce less pollution and reduce congestion through carpooling.

The carpoolers' bargaining clout is that they're turning three cars into one and making your commute faster by reducing congestion.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:47:04 EDT

If that means that the carpools and buses are driving 10 miles per hour slower than they do today, well, those carpools and buses aren't their customers. They're not paying tolls. So who cares?

Maybe then a part of the solution is to give the carpoolers and some 'bargaining clout' by charging them. I.e., Not exempting the carpoolers from the toll (they already get a break just by doubling up). This would encentivize those carpoolers who aren't in a hurry to use the regular lanes ... and thereby leave the HOT free for those who are ... As is the intent of these lanes. (Buses are few enough that it's probably not worth the trouble of trying to incentivie them. Although, in theory, it also holds that a tourist bus might be less inclined to spend the extra bucks for the HOT lanes than would say a commuter bus.)

Comment by VA Commuter

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:55:00 EDT

Geezh, 45 mph? down from 65 mph posted and 80 mph real time speed? I didn't know that. Dave, you're a great reporter. I think I heart you. :)

Comment by charlie

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:04:32 EDT

@Stewart Schwartz; oh-oh.

What's to prevent Transurban from getting a new 3% loan from the VATIB to pay off the 5 junk bond loans they have now?

Comment by Stewart Schwartz

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:55:22 EDT

In addition to the issues David raised, I fear that we will be footing most of the bill on the HOT lanes. Gov McDonnell's borrow and spend transportation package (SB1446/HB2527) borrows $3 billion and creates a $1.5 billion fund for PPTA projects. I think he expects to put far more of our tax dollars into each PPTA project. On top of this his proposed Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank is designed to give 2-3 percent interest loans to private toll road builders. Yet, Sec Connaughton said that the investment return for the PPTA consortia is at least 14 percent. The upfront cash and the very low interest loans are on top of the 75 years worth of toll revenues granted to the companies. And to make matters worse, they propose taking revenues from education, public safety and other programs along with VDOT maintenance funds (the "audit") to capitalize the bank.

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:06:05 EDT

@ TGEoA: Sure it was granted... at the request of the Democratic Kaine Administration.

But it is so much easier to say "Bush baaaaad" and draw partisan lines.

Timmie, Obama buddy, DNC something and our next Senator.

Comment by OddNumber

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:03:20 EDT

@David Alpert - Thanks for responding to my comment in Part 1 and addressing "myth 3" in Part 2. I will admit I am not sure I followed all of your logic, but my understanding is that toll fees will be kept artificially low to maximize commuter usage and eventually bring HOT lanes traffic speed into equilibrium with the free lanes at a slower speed than the existing HOV lanes and thus defeating the utility. However, it is in Transurban's economic interests to use cost controls to avoid the equilibrium conditions with the free lanes for this very reason.

As to the larger question about speed in the 95/395 corridor (including both free and HOT lanes), I think it is still an open question as to determining that overall speed will be decreased. If the HOT lanes experience a small slow down, but the free lanes significantly speed up then the net would be faster speed.

Comment by TGEoA

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:33:35 EDT

One more point. Alpert tries to make this seem like the Republican Bush administration forced this issue by granting the exclusion.

Sure it was granted... at the request of the Democratic Kaine Administration.

But it is so much easier to say "Bush baaaaad" and draw partisan lines.

Comment by Lou

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:30:56 EDT

The quoted part still stands.

Comment by charlie

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:30:43 EDT

@stevek_fairfax; yeah, when it comes to Transurban my sarcasm meter starts to melt.

between the junk status, new management, and core profitability in Australia, I would not be surprised if Transurban was trying to sell their US vehicle.

Comment by TGEoA

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:30:39 EDT

@David

So what was the point of labeling Cooch as an ultra-conservative? I'm sure there are plenty of right wingers who would disagree.

Comment by stevek_fairfax

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:25:57 EDT

Charlie - I was trying to be sarcastic about the junk status not making much of a difference, because on the 495 HOT lanes, Transurban only raised less than 300 mil in private equity out of the total cost of the project. The rest was state money (400 mil) and federally-subsidised loans and bonds (around 1.7 billion). Wasn't directing the sarcasm at you at all, just at the fact that with Democrats in charge of the federal DOT, the HOT Lanes pork isn't there for them. Now as to whether there is other pork available, that is a matter of debate. But my point was HOT lanes became federally subsidised during the Bush administration.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:13:24 EDT

TGEoA, please make your arguments without resorting to personal attacks like making up diminutives of my name and calling me "ultra-liberal" (many social service advocates would disagree with that one). Your argument will be more effective if you make points rationally instead of seeming to be ranting in a childish way.

Comment by TGEoA

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:11:40 EDT

Ultra liberal Alpert jumped the gun in this series by including Myth #7.

I politely waited until he finished Part 2 to see how he could possibly argue that Arlington was in fact not crying racism.

From the lawsuit [HOT LANES] "encourage and enable a financially-able, privileged class of suburban and rural, primarily Caucasian residents from Stafford and Spotsylvania counties operating single occupancy vehicles ("SOV") unimpeded access on toll lanes."

In fact the County's representatives are the racists. Pot meet kettle.

So Alpert's argument is that #7 is a Myth because.... because he says it is.

Good job Davey.

Comment by charlie

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:23:40 EDT

@stevek_fairfax; the junk status is paramount.

Let's assume the numbers are correct and the ratios stay the same. Say about 100 million in state money, about 900 from transurban.

Transurban raised about 2.86 billion to buy proprieties in Virginia. Some large percentage of that has been spent. Their LOC is also not strong. I mean, it is with a Portuguese bank.

Where is transurban going to raise this money?

These deals depended on the ability of private companies to issue 99 year debt -- which lowered their cost of capital.

ANy buyers now?

Comment by stevek_fairfax

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:02:50 EDT

Charlie - if the Beltway HOT Lanes contract is any guide, where private funding was less than $300 million of the 2.4 billion cost, than the junk status shouldn't make that much of a difference. But of course Democrats are also in charge of the federal DOT for now....so those federal susidies for corporate HOT Lanes they got a few years ago have dried up.

Comment by bilbao

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:53:59 EDT

"HOT lanes are a clever gimmick to get something built without paying for it" -- Not technically true: HOT lanes are not necessarily just built to produce revenue to offset construction. Public-private partnerships are. HOT lanes don't require privatization, or the additional lanes, that were both a part of the 395 project. Washington State shows this with its SR167 project, where the state retains the revenue and sets prices for optimum mobility, not optimum total revenue.

Comment by Ren

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:50:38 EDT

I would disagree with your statement that "traffic generally moves swiftly in the HOV lanes". As a joyfully formerly daily busride on 395, I would say that at best, it occasionally moves swiftly. Because of the silly Prius exclusion and rampant law-breaking, probably 40% of the vehicles on my stretch of 395 had 2 or fewer bodies (not 3 or more). It was a pet peeve of mine because while house sellers in Fairlington (Arlington) love to claim that the area is "minutes from DC", it depends how many minutes you are talking about.

Comment by charlie

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:01:23 EDT

$1 billion.

Funded under the public-private partnership, how much is VDOT going to pay?

For the Beltway HOT lanes it was $400 million.

Where is tranurban getting the money? They make a good living on tolls in Australia, but this business model is untested. Their line of credit on the beltway is at junk status.

Comment by Rich

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:44:25 EDT

Arlington asked VDOT to include a provision in the contract forcing Transurban to manage the road to keep traffic flowing at the speed limit, 55 inside the Beltway and 65 outside. But VDOT refused.

FWIW, the speed limit in the I-95/395 HOV lanes is 65 mph from a point just south of the Pentagon Mixing Bowl interchange (specifically, from just south of the ramp to/from the part VA-27 that runs past the Pentagon) all the way down to the southern end of the express lanes near Dumfries. Only the small portion from the 14th Street Bridge to that spot is posted at 55. (I remember when they raised it to 65. I didn't ever expect to see VDOT posting a 65-mph speed limit inside the Beltway.)