I-110 & I-10 Los Angeles Express Lane Toll Policy

[qcar]

If you drive on the I-110 between the 91 and downtown LA or on the I-10 from downtown to the 605, come next year your HOV sticker on your shinny electric car wont be very useful. Expect to pay from .25 to 1.40 per mile. For the same privileged I enjoy today and my primary incentive to buy my leaf will then cost me an average of $160 per month. (Metro estimates avg toll from end to end to be $4. Also note that they are going to use switching fastrak transponders so every other transponder in the state currently wont let you carpool in these lanes unless they are switched out.

Here is the rate schedule:

ExpressLanes Demonstration Business Rule

I-110 Harbor Transitway Lanes Only
SOV Pay
HOV 2+ Free

I-10 El Monte Busway Lanes Only
SOV Pay
HOV-2 Pay: Peak Hours
(5am–9am; 4pm–7pm)
HOV-2 Free: Off-Peak Hours
HOV 3+ Free All Hours



I sent the following email to the [email protected] to clarify the statutory basis for this policy:



I am a resident of the city of Torrance and a commuter who every
weekday morning enters the 110 near the Artesia Transit Center and
exits at Adam Avenue and then in the evening returns home by the same
route. I live in the South Bay and work downtown. I currently drive
a Nissan Leaf which replaced my Toyota Prius in May of this year. I am
trying to understand why the current toll plan does not provide the
same preferential treatment for ZEV vehicles regardless of occupancy
as required by V.C. Section 21655.9?

"21655.9. (a) (1) Whenever the Department of Transportation or a
local authority authorizes or permits exclusive or preferential use of
highway lanes or highway access ramps for high-occupancy vehicles
pursuant to Section 21655.5, the use of those lanes or ramps shall
also be extended to vehicles that are issued distinctive decals,
labels, or other identifiers pursuant to Section 5205.5 regardless of
vehicle occupancy or ownership."

While I do understand that section 5205.5(k) excludes AT-PZEV vehicles
from this exemption:

"(k) Notwithstanding Section 21655.9, a vehicle described in paragraph
(5) of subdivision (a) shall not be exempt from toll charges imposed
on single occupant vehicles in lanes designated for tolls pursuant to
the federally supported value-pricing and transit development
demonstration program operated pursuant to Section 149.9 of the
Streets and Highways Code."

My vehicle is a one that is described in 5205.5(a)(1) and should
otherwise be exempt from these toll charges as 2+ vehicles are
exempted. Can you please clarify the MTA's position on this matter
and if there is a plan to not exempt electric vehicles from the 110
HOT lanes, please provide the legislative authority?

Thank you,

_____________________________________________________


I had to send this twice and this is the response I just received:

Hi,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Metro ExpressLanes Program. The focus of this pilot program is to reduce congestion by moving more people - not more vehicles. Driving alone in an alternative fuel vehicle helps reduce pollution but it does not reduce congestion.

Toll exemption for alternative fuel vehicles were considered in the planning for the ExpressLanes. The principle areas of consideration were the project goals, traffic volumes (current and forecast) and enforcement. After six public hearings, the Metro Board adopted the ExpressLanes Toll Policy which provides toll free travel only for vehicles that meet the minimum occupancy requirement (which is 2+ on the I-110). This policy is compliant with both State and Federal Law.

The HOV Network in LA County is extensive as it coverts 485 lane miles, or 34% of the total 1,410 HOV lane miles (approximate) in the state. The Metro ExpressLanes will cover 10.5% of the county network. So, more than 400 lane miles of the HOV network will remain available for white sticker vehicles. After one year of operation, Metro and Caltrans must report back to the state and the general public on the performance of the Metro ExpressLanes.

Best regards,
____________________________________________________________



I think this disregards the reason for the exemption in the first place in that CA has considered this issue and determined that reducing pollution is a higher priority than reducing congestion in respect to car pool lanes. Also it is nice to know that there are plenty of roads that I don't drive on that would still be free. I still don't see where there is legislative authority to charge tolls to white sticker vehicles, but then again I only spent an hour or so looking at the CA code before I wrote my email.

 

[smkettner]

Maybe the inquiry needs to be sent to a different agency or your representative in Sacramento.
Probably the only other option is refuse payment and see what a judge says.

I agree with you position.

 

[qcar]

Here is my followup to the MTA:
__________________________________________________________
I do appreciate the focus of the pilot is to reduce congestion, but
the CA state legislators have clearly demonstrated a mandate to
provide incentives to reduce pollution that in many cases supersedes
congestion issues with respect to high occupancy lanes of the CA
highway system. I went back to the CA Vehicle Code and reread Section
149.9 that provides the the authority to create the I-10 and I-110
Expresslanes and again I do not find any exemption from 21655.9 which
requires that the white sticker vehicles receive the same preferential
treatment as 2+ vehicles. If you could point this authority out to me
it would be much appreciated. Section 5205.5(k) clearly addresses this
issues with paying tolls with respect to the new green stickered plug
in hybrids, but there is no such exemption from the regulation to
allow the MTA to treat white stickered vehicles different than 2+
vehicles that I can locate in the code.

I also am aware of the other 400 miles of HOV lanes in LA County, but
as I stated in my prior email, my commute is exactly the length of
the planned I-110 Expresslane so this there existence does little to
placate me.

Thank you,
_________________________________________

 

[SanDust]

I think they're right. Congestion and pollution are two separate issues. Your Leaf creates as much congestion as any other car so there isn't any reason from a congestion standpoint why it should get special treatment. It's been proven that pay plans reduce congestion better than the standard HOV lanes.

You may have to pay for access to the HOV lanes but you won't be paying for gas. You'll still come out ahead.

The problem with the argument that a general legislative desire to promote EVs requires that EVs have access to HOV lanes is that it proves too much. The lack of pollution has to be tied to something that pertains to pollution. Otherwise you just have an implied general legislative intent to promote a type of vehicle, which could be used to support any preference, including not having to stand in line at the grocery store.

 

[MrFish]

I'm sorry but if you really believe this is about congestion vs pollution I disagree. This is about money since if you can afford to purchase a transponder and pay, you still get to use the lane solo. It reminds me of the red light cameras that were about "safety" even though studies demonstrated an increase in accidents. Pure and simple this is about stuffing the coffers with cash, I just wish they would be honest about it, but then who am I kidding.

 

[qcar]

I think they're right. Congestion and pollution are two separate issues. Your Leaf creates as much congestion as any other car so there isn't any reason from a congestion standpoint why it should get special treatment. It's been proven that pay plans reduce congestion better than the standard HOV lanes.

.

That may be be the case, but the HOV lanes sole purpose is to reduce congestion by encouraging car pooling right? The CA legislators created incentives to purchasers of alt energy vehicles that surely frustrate this purpose by providing Alt vehicles certain rights that are apposite of this policy. But they did grant these rights. I am only pointing this out, not stating that it is right or wrong (although I am enjoying the benefits of its)

 

[LakeLeaf]

The focus of this pilot program is to reduce congestion by moving more people - not more vehicles. Driving alone in an alternative fuel vehicle helps reduce pollution but it does not reduce congestion.

You should send them the study referenced here

There are not enough multi occupant vehicles on the road to get the maximum traffic flow out of the carpool lanes. The incentives, after years of HOV lanes, are not sufficient to convince more to carpool. By allowing more cars in the carpool lane, *all* traffic flows better. So I don't think it is quite correct for them to claim that driving alone in an alternative fuel vehicle helps reduce pollution but it does not reduce congestion if that alternative fuel vehicle is allowed to drive in the HOV lane. The only question seems to be if there are enough ZEV in use to create optimal flow, or if an additional group of vehicles should also be allowed in the lane.

So is the purpose to incentive, or to optimize driving for everyone? Note that the later doesn't preclude the former.

 

[qcar]

The focus of this pilot program is to reduce congestion by moving more people - not more vehicles. Driving alone in an alternative fuel vehicle helps reduce pollution but it does not reduce congestion.

You should send them the study referenced here

There are not enough multi occupant vehicles on the road to get the maximum traffic flow out of the carpool lanes. The incentives, after years of HOV lanes, are not sufficient to convince more to carpool. By allowing more cars in the carpool lane, *all* traffic flows better. So I don't think it is quite correct for them to claim that driving alone in an alternative fuel vehicle helps reduce pollution but it does not reduce congestion if that alternative fuel vehicle is allowed to drive in the HOV lane. The only question seems to be if there are enough ZEV in use to create optimal flow, or if an additional group of vehicles should also be allowed in the lane.

So is the purpose to incentive, or to optimize driving for everyone? Note that the later doesn't preclude the former.

I don't think it matters in this situation so much as the idea here is to increase the use of the HOV lanes by making them HOT lanes and allow SOV (single occupied vehicles) into the HOT lanes (for a price). Thus I think they will get a lot more use and thus be slowed down to the highest price tier. HOV vehicles will ride for free on the I-110 Expresslanes, but alt vehicle SOVs that were previously permitted to use HOV lanes will no longer receive the preferential treatment that HOVs do in the Espresslanes. I don't see the legislative authority that permits the MTA to do this. Anyone have any ideas? I figure my first step in opposing this is to determine how it is permitted in the first place.

Also interesting is that they will be the only toll lanes that use the switchable fastrak units in the state. It is not clear to me if you have multiple parties in you car and no fastrak unit if you can drive in the HOT lanes or not. Given that I have a I-90 fastrak unit that isn't switchable, if I have passenger I am still unsure if I either hide the unit under my lap top is it is unreadable by the scanners or pay the toll.

 

[kevin672]

Here is my followup to the MTA:
__________________________________________________________
I do appreciate the focus of the pilot is to reduce congestion, but
the CA state legislators have clearly demonstrated a mandate to
provide incentives to reduce pollution that in many cases supersedes
congestion issues with respect to high occupancy lanes of the CA
highway system. I went back to the CA Vehicle Code and reread Section
149.9 that provides the the authority to create the I-10 and I-110
Expresslanes and again I do not find any exemption from 21655.9 which
requires that the white sticker vehicles receive the same preferential
treatment as 2+ vehicles. If you could point this authority out to me
it would be much appreciated. Section 5205.5(k) clearly addresses this
issues with paying tolls with respect to the new green stickered plug
in hybrids, but there is no such exemption from the regulation to
allow the MTA to treat white stickered vehicles different than 2+
vehicles that I can locate in the code.

I also am aware of the other 400 miles of HOV lanes in LA County, but
as I stated in my prior email, my commute is exactly the length of
the planned I-110 Expresslane so this there existence does little to
placate me.

Thank you,
_________________________________________

In all government matters, you have to contact the correct people and not just the gatekeeper. Here's the contact list for the MTA including the board of directors and more importantly, their attorney Charles Safer. http://www.metro.net/about/contact/management-staff-directory/ I would forward your original email and response to the 3 "Board Appointed Officers." If they've acted outside the law, and it comes to their attention that they've done so and continue act anyway, that can be a real problem for the board. Given that, I'm sure they'll respond with details on why their plan follows California law, if it does. If they don't, then you might file a complaint with the county's Attorney General, and perhaps the state Attorney General as well.

 

[qcar]

In all government matters, you have to contact the correct people and not just the gatekeeper. Here's the contact list for the MTA including the board of directors and more importantly, their attorney Charles Safer. http://www.metro.net/about/contact/management-staff-directory/ I would forward your original email and response to the 3 "Board Appointed Officers." If they've acted outside the law, and it comes to their attention that they've done so and continue act anyway, that can be a real problem for the board. Given that, I'm sure they'll respond with details on why their plan follows California law, if it does. If they don't, then you might file a complaint with the county's Attorney General, and perhaps the state Attorney General as well.

I am assuming they are doing this consistent with the vehicle code; I can't imagine they would make that mistake, but then again I've seen some interesting CFs. My main point for posting this here is to see if anyone else on this forum will be affected by this change and have a negative reaction. My time is worth way more than $4 an hour so I am not so worried about affording the carry, I just find it a bit strange given the State's current position on supporting EVs. :?

 

[Aeolus]

I think a better approach would be to seek clarification of the law through the legislature.

State Senator Alan Lowenthal has been quoted as expressing surprise that ZEV's were excluded under the 10 / 110 proposal. The authorizing legislation did not require this, but only because it was never anticipated that MTA would decide that ZEV's were not entitled to use this section of the carpool lane system with a single passenger.

The following article, which I found with the Google lays out the argument, from the point of Natural Gas vehicles, that the carpool lanes have the dual functions of lowering emissions and reducing congestion.

http://www.cngvc.org/pdf/newsletters/CalNGVNews_113009.pdf

Senator Lowenthal still is on the State Senate transportation committee. He is running for Congress since he is termed out, and could probably use some burnishing of the environmental credentials.

 

[Aeolus]

It is also interesting to note that the 91 Express lanes in Orange County, now administered by OCTA, allow free access for ZEV vehicles except during the highest single peak period, when the toll is reduced by 50%. These toll lanes are the most successful model for HOT/HOV lane operations in California.
.

Special Access
Special Access accounts are available for customers who always drive with three or more people in the vehicle (3+ Lane), drive a motorcycle, a zero emission vehicle, or have a disabled person or disabled veterans license plate issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Special Access customers are eligible to ride for free at all times except Monday through Friday, eastbound, between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. At this time, when traveling through the 3+ Carpool Lane, a 50% discount is given on all trips made on the 91 Express Lanes.

 

[coolfilmaker]

Does anyone worry that this is hurting sales of EVs? Can't the CARB do something?

 

[Devin]

As much as I love Metro and most of what they do, HOT lanes are completely bone-headed. They're going to cost Metro (i.e. fare-payers and tax-payers) a fortune for a project that I believe will ultimately prove more trouble than it's worth and isn't an answer to the congestion problem like full London-style congestion charging would be.

What I suspect needs to happen to get Metro to change their policy is legal action. Motorcycles are told to select 3+ occupancy on their HOT transponders at all times, even if they are a single occupant. Whoever wants to fight this should do the same in their white-stickered vehicle, and when they get a ticket from the CHP they ought to take it to court and fight it under the argument that Metro's policy conflicts with state law. I'm not a lawyer, and frankly I've only been on the 110 twice in my life and rarely use the 10, but I think whoever decides to pursue this has a really good chance at winning in court.

What really astounds me is that there are only so many white-stickered vehicles in the LA basin, which will be moot in 2015, and yet Metro has decided to annoy all of them for no particularly good reason.

 

[thankyouOB]

nice work qcar.
it is a bad idea to begin with; allowing folks with the funds or who can write off the travel -- ie it is not commuting -- and leave the suckers in the regular lanes.
to further discriminate and discourage the purchase of BEVs compounds the stupidity.
thanks, too, to aeolus for finding other sources where we can complain. I would say the LA Sacto delegation is prolly the best place to get this undone.