« Worth Reading | Main | High Stakes Testing: There is No Free Lunch »
September 01, 2005
Are Lexus Lanes a HOT Idea?
Often I don't agree with New York Times columnist John Tierney, but on this I do. The idea of opening up HOV lanes to hybrid cars is getting bandied about quite a bit, and is already a reality in Virginia and California. But as enticing as the idea may seem, I think it's a mistake, at least for the Northwest.
In Virgina, the carpool lanes are getting more and more clogged with drive-alone commuters in hybrid cars. But in terms of saving energy, It's more important to keep HOV lanes flowing freely for transit, vanpool, and (perhaps) carpools, than to fill them with drive-alone commuters--even if they're driving efficent cars. As more and more hybrids enter the vehicle fleet, the HOV-clogging problem will only intensify. Plus, hybrid owners may quickly come to perceive driving in the HOV lane as a right rather than a privilege, making it harder to reclaim those lanes for transit. On top of all that, politicians have a disturbing tendency to lower standards, allowing bigger and less fuel-efficient hybrids to use the lanes. So it's a bad idea to begin with, and the slippery slope makes it seem worse and worse.
On the other hand, turning HOV lanes into HOT lanes -- "high-occupancy/toll" lanes that are free to buses and carpools, available to others for a toll that's dynamically priced to keep traffic flowing -- seems to me to be a better option. Both ideas increase the number of cars on the road, but HOT lanes at least have the advantage of keeping transit moving smoothly, while introducing the not-so-radical notion that, in fact, freeways aren't really free.
The most potent argument against HOT lanes is that they're really "Lexus Lanes" -- ie., rich people will pay to use them, but everyone else will be stuck in traffic. Admittedly, the optics of HOT lanes aren't great. But hybrid owners tend to be a well-heeled bunch too, so giving them free access to the HOV lanes still has social and class implications. And besides, according to this Q&A (scroll down to the bottom) studies of HOT lanes in California say that:
"Although roughly one-quarter of the motorists in the toll lanes at any given time are in the top income bracket, data demonstrate that the majority are low and middle-income motorists. The benefits of the HOT lane are enjoyed widely at all income levels."
I don't take that as definitive -- but it certainly suggests that the well-off wouldn't be the sole beneficiaries of HOT lanes.
Posted by ClarkWD | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834573a7069e200d8348b156069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are Lexus Lanes a HOT Idea?:
Comments
At an angle to the article itself - my peeve is when the idea of "hybrids" is confabulated with the idea of high mpg or low emissions cars.
Some hybrids, certainly, are high mpg and low emissions ... but despite the alliteration, I don't believe there is a Lexus that is.
Actually, I think keep our eye on which kind of hybrids we are making might be a bigger issue than the HOV lanes themselves. And perhaps, the fact that California law (etc.) excludes the Lexus might drive home the distinction.
Posted by: odograph | Sep 7, 2005 8:55:42 AM
"data demonstrate that the majority are low and middle-income motorists. The benefits of the HOT lane are enjoyed widely at all income levels."
That's complete nonsense, unless they're including all the people on buses and in carpools.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Sep 11, 2005 4:25:36 PM
"The amount paid in tolls by the different income groups reflects the composition of the SOV drivers on the HOT lane. Although some drivers from the lowest quartile do drive alone in the HOT lanes and pay the toll, only 4.8% of the toll revenue is collected from that income group, indicating that few poor drivers actually pay the toll. But 53% of the toll is paid by the highest quartile, indicating that most SOV drivers in the HOT lanes are wealthier drivers who are willing to pay for reduced congestion.
Because the wealthiest households are more likely to use the HOT lane and pay the toll, they also are the primary recipients of the benefits from the reduced congestion. In fact, the wealthiest quartile receives travel-related benefits more than 17 times greater than the poorest quartile. Even after accounting for the cost of paying the toll, the wealthiest quartile still receives a total welfare gain ($30.32 million) far greater than that of the poorest quartile ($1.13 million)."
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-IB-03-03.pdf
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Sep 11, 2005 4:37:33 PM
Joseph -
Hm. Maybe I'm missing something here, but your point seems to straddle the line being perfectly correct and irrelevant.
Right now, there's unused traffic capacity on HOV lanes. And the proposals on the table seem to be trying to figure out what to do with it: offer it to hybrids, offer it to people who can/are willing to pay, or don't use it.
I feel that doing the first (adding hybrids) is a mistake, since it will likely clog lanes that are used by transit and carpools -- a benefit for well-heeled hybrid owners, a problem for people who rely on transit.
The third might make some sense, since it pretty much guarantees road space for transit and carpools. The problem is that as regular lanes clog up, it's hard for politicians to resist the temptation to opening up those HOV lanes.
The second option (HOT lanes) has the advantage that it can keep transit moving, provided that the tolls are set high enough to keep them from getting clogged. It may also relieve a bit of the pressure on the regular lanes (though they'll probably fill right up again soon due to induced demand). But solo drivers in the regular lanes might gain a bit too.
So, turning HOV lanes to HOT lanes benefits rich solo drivers a bunch, not-so-well-off solo drivers a bit, and (in theory at least) doesn't affect transit or carpools.
Turning HOV lanes to HOV-hybrid lanes benefit hybrid drivers (typically, fairly well off) a fair amount, non-hybrid drivers a bit, and hurt transit and carpools.
Keeping HOV lanes as they are gives no added benefit to the well off or to the poor, and doesn't affect transit or carpools.
Of those 3 options, HOT lanes seem like the best deal -- with the greatest total benefits for not-so-well-off solo commuters and transit users.
Now, better still would be to use HOT lane revenue to offset sales taxes, or provide more and better transit service. But even on their face, it's hard to see how the poor lose out.
Posted by: Clark Williams-Derry | Sep 13, 2005 10:12:23 AM
Clark, I'm going to assume that you're new to this issue and don't have all the relevant facts at your disposal.
First, you should consult H.R. 3- the "Transportation Equity Act" - which was signed into law on August 10. If you go to section 1208 entitled "HOV facilities", you can see the relevant rules as they apply to diamond lanes, ie, there is a minimum of two occupants per vehicle with 4 exceptions - motorcycles and (believe it or not) bicycles; public transport; HOT vehicles; and "low emission and energy efficient vehicles". As for the final exception, only "inherently low emission vehicles", as defined in the Federal Code and by the EPA, can use the lanes freely (and only if the state itself allows them). "Other low emission and energy efficient vehicles" (again, which have specific criteria, including meeting Tier II and get greater than 45 mpg) will have to pay tolls if the state allows it.
So, clearly the characterization of this as "tolls versus hybrids" is very inaccurate, though it plays well in terms of framing the debate falsely.
Note also that the "low emision vehicle" exemptions expire in 2009, whereas the HOT lane exceptions don't. The entire purpose of the "low emission" exception is to co-opt well-meaning people such as yourself by first giving some indication that the Feds give a damn about hybrids (which they don't) while also distorting the whole notion of "congestion pricing" - which seems to be what is appealing to you. It's an old progressive concept that's meant to incent better transportation, but HOT lanes aren't congestion pricing -- they're two-tier road pricing. People will still travel on the roadway -- they'll just sit in congestion if they choose not to pay. Real congestion pricing tolls the whole roadway, providing a disincentive to drive during peak times.
Next, move on to the reality about how these lanes play out financially, as well as how they impact congestion. Since I live in the Twin Cities, I can share with you some of the initial experience we've had since the state changed the diamond lane on I-394 to a HOT lane.
First, the governor and other proponents claimed that it would pay for itself. But, as time went on, studies showed that would never be the case. Plus, because of the time periods put into effect for the lanes, evening commuters actually faced MORE congestion than before, and because of their frustration, the state BUILT A WHOLE NEW LANE at taxpayer expense. So this notion that somehow HOT lanes benefit people in non-toll lanes is false, as is the notion that they will be a revenue source. So far, the HOT lanes have cost the people of Minnesota millions of dollars which it will never recoup, and ended up forcing the highway to be widened.
I'm not sure why you think my comments about equity are "irrelevant", since you quoted the standard "Lexus Lane" rebuttal put forward by HOT lane proponents - one which doesn't even pass the most basic smell test as being valid. Note how vague the claim is -- "benefits of the HOT lane are enjoyed widely at all income levels". There's no specific indication of demographic breakdown by actual use, so that's why I showed you the study about the DC-area diamond lanes indicating the utility to the upper quartile of income is 30 times greater than the lowest quintile.
Your three options - hybrids, HOT, or no action - is a false set of choices as well. These are not the only options. As I've shown, it's not even about hybrids in one of the options, so you have to ask yourself why it's characterized that way by critics (the Transportation Equity Act is quite clear about it).
Diamond lanes are there to incent higher throughput (ie, better utilization of fixed roadway capacity) by encouraging people to rideshare -- whether it be on public transit, in vanpools or carpools, or riding a motorcyle. The "low emission" and HOT exemptions have precisely the same effect as one another -- they are SOVs driving in an HOV lane. And as HR3 points out, your fears about a "slippery slope" are unfounded, since they specifically define which types of low emission vehicles can use the lane only if they pay a toll. So, I fail to see how that is different from someone driving any given car paying a toll.
As it stands, in many places diamond lane capacity is underutilized. In many cases, this has a lot to do with neglect by the feds, state, and regional governments not providing enough resources to incent higher vehicle occupancy (again, either throug increasing transit ridership or carpooling). Slug lines, like they have in DC and the Bay Area, are grassroots ways people have responded to this neglect by self-organizing to take advantage of the diamond lanes.
So, you're ignoring the "incent more high vehicle occupancy" and its whole cost-benefit analysis as one option -- and in my opinion, it is the best option to be applied to diamond lanes.
Instead, what we're getting is fallacious appeals about "paying for itself", "helping the non-toll lanes", "helping the working mom late to day care", etc. Anytime one reads an HOT advocate make their case (as Tierney did) it's the same exact talking points, the same exact references to the same California diamond lanes, the same references to "hybrids" "clogging" the lanes, and absolutely no scientific study to back up their claims about all the "magical benefits" of this solution which was born and bred in the Reason Policy Institute and is pushed by every right-wing "no new taxes" radical around.
Think about this for a second -- why has there been an urban renaissance the past 20 years? Is it because people all of a sudden found value in greater pollution, smaller lots, higher crime, more pavement, etc? Why particularly have high income individuals been flocking back to urban cores?
Congestion. It's pretty much the main reason.
So, with HOT lanes, these high income individuals can now just consider having an open lane in and out of the city as a cheap tax (relative to their income) which I'm sure they now use without even thinking about it -- ie, they just use the lane without even considering getting into the non-toll lanes.
Think of the fiscal, social, and environmental consequences of this new incentive system in relation to the theoretically small benefits that are made by the proponents of the HOT lane concept.
I could go on, but you'd do yourself a favor to do a little more background research into the basis and history of this HOT lane movement before getting on board with the radicals behind it.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Sep 13, 2005 8:25:37 PM
Joseph -
Thanks for the thoughtful and informative response. I'm not sure I agree with you (at least, not yet) but it's very, very helpful to have your thoughts out on the table.
Posted by: Clark Williams-Derry | Sep 14, 2005 11:12:59 AM