Developing a Regional Express Lane Network

1. Developing a Regional Express Lane Network Hercules City Council Meeting April 28, 2009 Doug Kimsey MTC Planning Director

2. “Top 10” Common Questions: • What are Express Lanes? • Why a Regional Express Lane Network? • What legal authority exists to implement Express Lanes? • What will it cost and how much revenue will be generated? • How will toll revenues be spent and who decides? • Why not take a lane where HOV doesn’t exist? • What will be the impact on carpooling and buses currently operating in HOV lanes? • Are Express Lanes equitable? • What are some of the benefits of Express Lanes? • Where do we go from here?

3. What are Express Lanes? • High-Occupancy/ Toll Lanes; Express Lanes • HOV lanes with a twist • Carpools, buses free • Single drivers can choose to pay (congestion insurance) • Electronic tolls • Variable tolls to manage demand I-25 Express Lanes Toll Schedule

4. Why a RegionalExpress Lane Network? • Proven corridor/system management tool • Makes best use of capacity • Encourages more carpooling and express bus • Sea change in transportation funding • Federal and state accounts going broke • National and international trend toward user fees • Regionally controlled revenue – traditional funding freed up • Introduces road pricing concept • Completes the regional HOV system – 30 years in the making – over 20 years faster than traditional public funding • Consolidates current/planned express lanes under one organization

5. Proven Corridor Management Tool Fewer Delays Reported (Minneapolis) 20% Reduced crashes (Minneapolis) 12% Improved Travel Speeds (Minneapolis) 5% Increased Carpooling (San Diego) 58% Doubled Vehicle Throughput (Orange County) 100%

6. European/Asian Model:Cordon/Area Pricing London Stockholm Singapore

7. HOT Lanes Across the Country • Orange County (1995) • San Diego (1998) • Houston (1998) • Minneapolis (2005) • Denver (2006) • Seattle (2008) • San Diego extension (2008) • Miami (2008) • Houston expansion (2009) • Los Angeles (2010) • Bay Area I-680, I-580 (2010) • Bay Area Rte 85/US 101 (2012/2013) • Riverside (2015)

8. Bay Area Network • Limited and purposeful freeway widening • 800 miles total • 500 miles conversion (63%) • 400 existing • 100 fully funded • 300 miles new lanes (37%) • 60% are “gap closures” • 5% increase in freeway mileage • Why not take a lane? • Lane configurations inconsistent • Concept will be explored where feasible (SM 101) • Limited footprint 8

9. Phased Approach • Phase 1 • Existing projects in development • Phase 2 • Easier conversion projects • Extremely constrained areas developed last • I-80 inner East Bay • 680/24 interchange I-580 I-680 South US 101, SR 85 & 237 9

10. What legal authority exists to implement Express Lanes? • Alameda and Santa Clara Counties currently have authority to develop and operate initial HOT lanes • AB 744 Torrico seeks to give BATA authority to develop and operate the Regional Express Lane Network • A regional steering committee comprised of CMAs, Caltrans, CHP and BATA would advise BATA board • Corridor-based regional network • BATA would serve as financier

11. What legal authority exists to implement Express Lanes? (cont.) • Corridor-based regional network • Corridor Working Groups will develop Corridor Improvement Plans (CIP) to recommend: • occupancy and tolling policies, • express lane phasing, • use of corridor net revenues. • BATA as financier • Develop investment grade cost and revenue forecasts for bonding purposes • Develop regional network phasing plan to guide network implementation

12. What will it cost and how much revenue will be generated? • RTP network revenues were based on planning level financial estimates • Costs assume Rapid Delivery model 2009 through 2033, escalated

13. How will toll revenues be spent, and who decides? • Debt service and financing costs for phased network development (BATA) • Operations and maintenance of the toll network (BATA) • Corridor investments - 95% of net revenues to the corridor where generated - (CWGs) • Transit • Corridor projects that reduce vehicle emissions and provide cost-effective public transit options

14. Limited Access Models Weave Lanes: Minneapolis HOT (I-394, I-35) Seattle HOT (SR 167) LA HOV and HOT (I-210, I-10, I-110) Atlanta HOT (I-85) Transition Lanes: Bay Area (I-680 Sunol) Not likely feasible in some areas Two-Lanes: Alameda (I-580), Santa Clara Counties (SR 85, US 101) considering; not included in Transportation 2035 - May have cost, feasibility and environmental considerations Continuous Access: future feasibility TBD

15. Impact on Buses & Carpooling? • State and Federal law: HOT lanes must remain free flowing; tolls set accordingly • HOT network closes gaps to better serve buses and carpools, which are still free • Experience shows HOT lanes do not discourage carpools • Provides new revenue source for transit that can help support transit service such as express bus service

16. Are Express Lanes Equitable? • High income travelers use HOT more & pay more • Lower income travelers use when travel time savings needed • Carpooling and bus remain as lower cost options • Net revenue can fund transit improvements • Seattle: Chevrolets and Fords more common than luxury makes by factor of 1,000 HOT Lanes Used by All Income Levels (I-394 Corridor Minneapolis) Have you ever used the MnPass Lane? Source: NuSTATS (8/06)

17. Desired Network Reduces Emissions Compared to HOV in 2030 ROG NOx CO2 PM10

18. Where do we go from here? • Coalition building on AB 744 • Continue design discussions • Develop phasing and implementation plan • Coordination with ongoing corridor management efforts (ICM and FPI) • Ongoing education and outreach

19. For More Info: This Presentation: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/meetings/presentations/index.htm General Express Lane info: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov/