Comments on: Berkeley Professor says HOT lanes will lose money and infuriate drivers, but he overlooks his own findings

By: Switching Modes

Switching Modes — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:15:16 +0000

I agree.

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:55:05 +0000

What I don’t get is the “HO” part of HOT lanes. Why give people a free ride? It just adds to the enforcement complexity and reduces revenue and the attractiveness of the lanes (at the limit, to zero paying customers because they’re full of non-paying HOVs). A toll already incentivizes HOVs to some extent, since the cost of the toll is presumably split among the people in the car, so the more people you have in your car, the better.

By: switchingmodes

switchingmodes — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:41:19 +0000

I agree. At this point I think it is a well established fact that freeway expansion leads to sprawl. We can be pretty sure that if there is extra capacity on a freeway it will be utilized at some point in the near future; the lower land values will attract people until the freeway overreaches capacity and turns into complete gridlock.

In a sense, building an extra lane, even if it is a HOT lane, on these freeways encourages sprawl, or what you appropriately describe at “junk.” I’m less enthusiastic about the second phase of the HOT lane network which will build new lanes rather than convert carpool (HOV) lanes to HOT lanes. Nevertheless, because these lanes will provide a revenue source for the MTC to help fund operational costs on their regional rail network, this is a good plan. I would have liked to see a clause that said any new lanes in the Bay Area will be toll lanes, and that these can only be built if the preponderance of evidence shows that they will be profitable. But I must admit that the idea of congestion pricing be introduced to the public is such monumental step in the right direction that I support this “baby step”, one that may one day lead to the implementation of congestion pricing on existing mixed flow lanes – especially the Bay Bridge.

By: The Overhead Wire

The Overhead Wire — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:38:56 +0000

I should also argue that future growth trends are predicated on expanding the highway. Many future growth trends are just sprawl developers saying put this road here and we’ll for certain build you junk.

By: switchingmodes

switchingmodes — Wed, 13 May 2009 04:26:39 +0000

ian, I completely agree with you. I wrote about just what you say in an previous article posted on this website. It's important to understand that the HOT lane network will help fund the operating costs of a regional rail network.

By: ian

ian — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:20:11 +0000

i wish the MTC would grow a pair and get serious about promoting effective and thorough commuter / regional rail throughout the bay area.

increasing the connectivity and coverage of transit (though SMART will help, for example) will do much more than an HOT lane network that banks on the continuing (failed) model of automobiles and sprawl…

so if the bay area *really* wants to switch modes, it really needs to get its transit act together. Newsom and the governator are nor helping, and neither is our current, 25+ balkanized transit system.

oh well. solutions for much more intelligent regions.