Comments on: The HOT Lane: San Francisco Bay Area MTC moves forward with congestion pricing http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/ Putting Transit On The Fast Track™ Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Berkeley Professor says HOT lanes will loose money and infuriate drivers, but he overlooks his own discoveries « SwitchingModes.com http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/#comment-112 Berkeley Professor says HOT lanes will loose money and infuriate drivers, but he overlooks his own discoveries « SwitchingModes.com Wed, 13 May 2009 00:05:52 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=569#comment-112 [...] @ SFO: a missed opportunity for HSRBART: increasing system capactity without a new transbay tubeThe HOT Lane: San Francisco Bay Area MTC moves forward with congestion pricingAbout Us © Brian A. Tyler and SwitchingModes.com, 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of [...] [...] @ SFO: a missed opportunity for HSRBART: increasing system capactity without a new transbay tubeThe HOT Lane: San Francisco Bay Area MTC moves forward with congestion pricingAbout Us © Brian A. Tyler and SwitchingModes.com, 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of [...]

]]> By: anonymouse http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/#comment-50 anonymouse Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:08:09 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=569#comment-50 If we're talking about $3.7 billion, then they're not just putting in tolls on existing lanes. And if they're building new lanes, even if they are just for lexuses, those lexuses are almost certainly coming from the existing lanes, which means more capacity for people to switch from transit to driving. If we’re talking about $3.7 billion, then they’re not just putting in tolls on existing lanes. And if they’re building new lanes, even if they are just for lexuses, those lexuses are almost certainly coming from the existing lanes, which means more capacity for people to switch from transit to driving.

]]> By: switchingmodes http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/#comment-49 switchingmodes Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:13:15 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=569#comment-49 You're not correct about that. Yes, the toll lanes were bought back at a cost of $200 million, but that was because the freeway was expanded which violated the non-compete clause the toll agency has signed with transportation authority. IN NO WAY WAS SR-91 A BAILOUT. Also, these "Lexus Lanes" don't compete with transit. I don't see too many people who can afford these lanes - people who own a Lexus - using transit. Additionally, buses can and will use these lanes. Besides, MOST of these lanes, and ALL of the HOT lanes in the first phase are existing HOV lanes have extra capacity. It's sad that we have to have this kind of 'bake-sale' for transit, but we do. Transit needs it. And if it takes someone in a Lexus who is willing to pay to get to work faster for transit to get its' day, then I'm OK with that. You’re not correct about that. Yes, the toll lanes were bought back at a cost of $200 million, but that was because the freeway was expanded which violated the non-compete clause the toll agency has signed with transportation authority. IN NO WAY WAS SR-91 A BAILOUT.

Also, these “Lexus Lanes” don’t compete with transit. I don’t see too many people who can afford these lanes – people who own a Lexus – using transit. Additionally, buses can and will use these lanes. Besides, MOST of these lanes, and ALL of the HOT lanes in the first phase are existing HOV lanes have extra capacity.

It’s sad that we have to have this kind of ‘bake-sale’ for transit, but we do. Transit needs it. And if it takes someone in a Lexus who is willing to pay to get to work faster for transit to get its’ day, then I’m OK with that.

]]> By: anonymouse http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/#comment-47 anonymouse Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:24:35 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=569#comment-47 But the SR-91 lanes never re-paid their cost of construction and had to be bailed out by the county. It's unlikely that the HOT lanes will ever cover the cost of their construction, so why not just hand the money over to transit right now? Put it in a bank and call it the transit operations trust fund, or whatever. And don't forget that by building these competing lanes, you're cutting into transit ridership and making their deficits worse. I say we need to end this stupidity now: no more freeway widenings, period. But the SR-91 lanes never re-paid their cost of construction and had to be bailed out by the county. It’s unlikely that the HOT lanes will ever cover the cost of their construction, so why not just hand the money over to transit right now? Put it in a bank and call it the transit operations trust fund, or whatever. And don’t forget that by building these competing lanes, you’re cutting into transit ridership and making their deficits worse. I say we need to end this stupidity now: no more freeway widenings, period.

]]> By: switchingmodes http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/#comment-43 switchingmodes Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:27:05 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=569#comment-43 I think your comment is short sighted. Perhaps I should have made this clear in the post, but the money from HOT lanes will be used for the operational costs of transit. SMART and CalTrain will be funded according to MTC Resolution 3434, but the real problem is operational costs - the HOT lanes provide an alternative to relying on gas and sales taxes to ensure transit operations. I don't see this as competing with transit but rather complementing it.SR-91 was, in my opinion, a success. It was controversial because of the non-compete clause that prevented the state from expanding the freeway (this possibly being a good thing) the MTC is not pursuing PPPs on this project.It's realistic that the 800 mile network will increase toll revenues by 50% in the Bay Area. This is $200 million a year that will go primarily to transit, and that's a good thing. HOWEVER: if I had it may way the HOT lane network would involve ONLY converting HOV and mixed flow lanes and NOT new lanes. But being obstinate on this issue can only set transit back for the time being. I think your comment is short sighted. Perhaps I should have made this clear in the post, but the money from HOT lanes will be used for the operational costs of transit. SMART and CalTrain will be funded according to MTC Resolution 3434, but the real problem is operational costs – the HOT lanes provide an alternative to relying on gas and sales taxes to ensure transit operations. I don’t see this as competing with transit but rather complementing it.SR-91 was, in my opinion, a success. It was controversial because of the non-compete clause that prevented the state from expanding the freeway (this possibly being a good thing) the MTC is not pursuing PPPs on this project.It’s realistic that the 800 mile network will increase toll revenues by 50% in the Bay Area. This is $200 million a year that will go primarily to transit, and that’s a good thing. HOWEVER: if I had it may way the HOT lane network would involve ONLY converting HOV and mixed flow lanes and NOT new lanes. But being obstinate on this issue can only set transit back for the time being.

]]> By: anonymouse http://switchingmodes.com/2009/04/24/the-hot-lane-san-francisco-bay-area-mtc-moves-forward-with-congestion-pricing/#comment-42 anonymouse Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:45:51 +0000 http://switchingmodes.com/?p=569#comment-42 I think you're wrong. This measure is going to be bad for transit: it's a set of highway widenings that directly compete with the transit network, and the money raised from HOT lanes is going to be miniscule, if it even manages to cover the cost of construction (as experience with the SR-91 lanes shows). Why not just hand 800 million to Caltrain to build their electrification, 400 million to SMART, the rest to whatever other rail projects are being planned (DTEV? Geary Subway?), and forget the freeway widenings. They're the wrong way forward, and only as inevitable as the MTC makes them. I think you’re wrong. This measure is going to be bad for transit: it’s a set of highway widenings that directly compete with the transit network, and the money raised from HOT lanes is going to be miniscule, if it even manages to cover the cost of construction (as experience with the SR-91 lanes shows). Why not just hand 800 million to Caltrain to build their electrification, 400 million to SMART, the rest to whatever other rail projects are being planned (DTEV? Geary Subway?), and forget the freeway widenings. They’re the wrong way forward, and only as inevitable as the MTC makes them.

]]>