Eventual tolling and reduced speed limits proposed by Bay Area MTC

[jdbx]

I just read a rather disturbing article:  https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-highway-tolling-eyed-in-bay-area/article_76f88c4e-e106-11ea-a1db-0b8015584f6c.html

As part of a long-term planning exercise, the Bay Area MTC is proposing congestion pricing on all lanes of freeways where mass transit is an available option, as well as reducing speed limits to 55 MPH.  I'm sure that both of these proposals are going to be very unpopular, especially the tolling of general purpose freeway lanes.  My personal prediction is that these proposals are going to be taken off the table pretty quickly, especially if they are unable to get buy-in from the various counties.

[sparker]

I just read a rather disturbing article:  https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-highway-tolling-eyed-in-bay-area/article_76f88c4e-e106-11ea-a1db-0b8015584f6c.html

As part of a long-term planning exercise, the Bay Area MTC is proposing congestion pricing on all lanes of freeways where mass transit is an available option, as well as reducing speed limits to 55 MPH.  I'm sure that both of these proposals are going to be very unpopular, especially the tolling of general purpose freeway lanes.  My personal prediction is that these proposals are going to be taken off the table pretty quickly, especially if they are unable to get buy-in from the various counties.

Well, since there was no cite for the text of the letter itself, it can be assumed that it wasn't for public consumption but rather to be processed at the administrative level.   No doubt the compilers/drafters of the letter represent the currently-in-favor-in-planning-circles exceptionally dim view of automotive travel in general.  What I for one would like to see is how they determine what constitutes an "available transit option"; is it express bus service along the freeway facility itself (dedicated lanes or not); parallel commuter options (e.g. the Caltrain line, which functionally serves the same end points as US 101 and I-280), or simply local bus service as viewed in the aggregate sense.  I can see MTC jumping on the CA 24/I-680/CA 242/CA 4 "corridor" because it is closely paralleled by a BART line; likewise with the I-880/I-238/I-580 corridor out to Pleasanton.  While is is correct that 55mph would represent the likely fastest speed available during peak times, it seems that the purpose of a general 24/7 reduction to that speed is simply to render freeway driving less efficient during off-peak times to satisfy the planners' overall aim to make driving as onerous as possible -- and using "safety" as a rationale is simply disingenuous!   

[mrsman]

I just read a rather disturbing article:  https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-highway-tolling-eyed-in-bay-area/article_76f88c4e-e106-11ea-a1db-0b8015584f6c.html

As part of a long-term planning exercise, the Bay Area MTC is proposing congestion pricing on all lanes of freeways where mass transit is an available option, as well as reducing speed limits to 55 MPH.  I'm sure that both of these proposals are going to be very unpopular, especially the tolling of general purpose freeway lanes.  My personal prediction is that these proposals are going to be taken off the table pretty quickly, especially if they are unable to get buy-in from the various counties.

Well, since there was no cite for the text of the letter itself, it can be assumed that it wasn't for public consumption but rather to be processed at the administrative level.   No doubt the compilers/drafters of the letter represent the currently-in-favor-in-planning-circles exceptionally dim view of automotive travel in general.  What I for one would like to see is how they determine what constitutes an "available transit option"; is it express bus service along the freeway facility itself (dedicated lanes or not); parallel commuter options (e.g. the Caltrain line, which functionally serves the same end points as US 101 and I-280), or simply local bus service as viewed in the aggregate sense.  I can see MTC jumping on the CA 24/I-680/CA 242/CA 4 "corridor" because it is closely paralleled by a BART line; likewise with the I-880/I-238/I-580 corridor out to Pleasanton.  While is is correct that 55mph would represent the likely fastest speed available during peak times, it seems that the purpose of a general 24/7 reduction to that speed is simply to render freeway driving less efficient during off-peak times to satisfy the planners' overall aim to make driving as onerous as possible -- and using "safety" as a rationale is simply disingenuous!   

I would imagine that there are some limits to this and it cannot be something that the MTC simply imposes.  For one, there are significant restrictions on tolling interstate highways.  Another, there are standards to determine safe freeway speeds and a 55 MPH restriction cannot be imposed at whim when engineering guidelines clearly indicate that most of the freeways in the Bay Area are safe at 65.

[sprjus4]

Another, there are standards to determine safe freeway speeds and a 55 MPH restriction cannot be imposed at whim when engineering guidelines clearly indicate that most of the freeways in the Bay Area are safe at 65.

Most urban areas have freeways that have 85th percentile speeds at or over 65 mph and are safe at those speeds, yet the speed limit is 55 mph until well outside of the urban area for many.

California is pretty relaxed with urban speed limits and has no problem posting 65 mph on most urban freeways - which is completely reasonable and should be this way everywhere - though with this proposal, would become nothing more than any eastern state. Artificially low speed limit that is universally ignored by everybody on the road and not enforced by police unless you're singled out going excessively (i.e. 20-30+ mph) over.

[sparker]

Another, there are standards to determine safe freeway speeds and a 55 MPH restriction cannot be imposed at whim when engineering guidelines clearly indicate that most of the freeways in the Bay Area are safe at 65.

Most urban areas have freeways that have 85th percentile speeds at or over 65 mph and are safe at those speeds, yet the speed limit is 55 mph until well outside of the urban area for many.

California is pretty relaxed with urban speed limits and has no problem posting 65 mph on most urban freeways - which is completely reasonable and should be this way everywhere - though with this proposal, would become nothing more than any eastern state. Artificially low speed limit that is universally ignored by everybody on the road and not enforced by police unless you're singled out going excessively (i.e. 20-30+ mph) over.

Don't tell that to the editors of Streetsblog, who have argued for the elimination of the 85th percentile rule for some time now; the most recent entry in this area is entitled "The 85th Percentile Rule Is Killing Us!"  I personally know a couple of SJ planners (one's the son of one of my oldest friends) who follow that site religiously and have implemented some of their "road diet" suggestions (cf. Hedding Avenue, one of the main E-W arteries north of downtown SJ -- and passing directly by the building where the planners regularly worked until COVID).  Now -- I can see some value to that conceptualization in exceptionally dense urban areas, but in the industrial parks north and southeast of central SJ, with wide multi-lane arterials, the 85th percentile deserves consideration for retention, if for no other reason than to clear out the areas more efficiently during peak commute hours.  But a "one-size-fits-all" approach seems to be preferred within those planning circles, tailored toward either slowing automotive traffic to a virtual crawl or, in some circumstances, eliminating it altogether.  But if Caltrans maintains the 85th on those routes within their jurisdiction, there's no chance that the prevailing 65mph standard will change.  But the browbeating of agencies into accepting local planning preferences isn't an unknown factor in these parts; D4 could simply choose to arbitrarily ignore 85th data and lower speeds unilaterally if the pressure to do so was too high.  Ironically, I just came back from a weekend trip to SF; most of I-280 is a construction zone (primarily shoulder work) with a 55 limit attached; the same coming back across the bay on I-880 -- the HOT-lane project, which has been ongoing since early 2016, involves about 60% of the Alameda County portion reduced to 55mph (and even 50 on orange signs through the Oakland "warehouse curves").  If I were more cynical, I'd consider that "pre-conditioning"!

[SectorZ]

Seems like the typical primer of coming out with an idea that sounds heinous to make you accept the inevitable "somewhat crappy" idea.

[US 89]

Seems like the typical primer of coming out with an idea that sounds heinous to make you accept the inevitable "somewhat crappy" idea.

"We have to stick with the 55 mph limits, but we'll take away the congestion pricing just for you."

No need to mention how much federal funding would be lost if congestion pricing of GP lanes were introduced to the area's interstates.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well it is the Bay Area and there is a lot of people who push for things like this.  I already mostly stick to roads like CA 1, CA 35, and CA 130 when I'm coming and going from the Bay Area so I guess they it wouldn't be much of a difference.  Clearly nobody involved with this study remembers how laughable 55 MPH speed limits were when it was being forced by the Federal Government. 

[mapman]

To me, the "congestion pricing" plans sound consistent with the long-held MTC plan to add (what they call) "Express lanes" to freeways throughout the entire Bay Area.  Express lanes are currently on parts of I-880, CA 237 and I-680, and are under construction on other parts of I-680, I-880 and US 101.  As the counties control where the bulk of the state transportation funding goes in California, I can see why MTC wants the county buy-off on their plans.

As to the reducing speeds, virtually no one in the Bay Area observes the 65 mph speed limits on freeway anyway, so I would expect the same thing if the speed were every changed to 55 mph.  (The old Bay Area adage on speed: "The speed limit is the route number", i.e., 101 mph on US 101, 280 mph on I-280, etc.)

[Max Rockatansky]

To me, the "congestion pricing" plans sound consistent with the long-held MTC plan to add (what they call) "Express lanes" to freeways throughout the entire Bay Area.  Express lanes are currently on parts of I-880, CA 237 and I-680, and are under construction on other parts of I-680, I-880 and US 101.  As the counties control where the bulk of the state transportation funding goes in California, I can see why MTC wants the county buy-off on their plans.

As to the reducing speeds, virtually no one in the Bay Area observes the 65 mph speed limits on freeway anyway, so I would expect the same thing if the speed were every changed to 55 mph.  (The old Bay Area adage on speed: "The speed limit is the route number", i.e., 101 mph on US 101, 280 mph on I-280, etc.)

I guess what frustrates me when I hear talk like this from the Bay Area is that they are just making an increasingly unlivable situation even more so.  So many large companies have moved to the Bay Area in the last couple decades that it has driven home prices up and forced urban sprawl.  Mass transit isn't going to help anyone when you're commuting from places like; Manteca, Tracy, Stockton, Gilroy, and Hollister.  I don't have an answer for those problems but it sure seems like agencies like the MTC are only making those commutes more potentially even more of a burden. 

[DTComposer]

To me, the "congestion pricing" plans sound consistent with the long-held MTC plan to add (what they call) "Express lanes" to freeways throughout the entire Bay Area.  Express lanes are currently on parts of I-880, CA 237 and I-680, and are under construction on other parts of I-680, I-880 and US 101.  As the counties control where the bulk of the state transportation funding goes in California, I can see why MTC wants the county buy-off on their plans.

As to the reducing speeds, virtually no one in the Bay Area observes the 65 mph speed limits on freeway anyway, so I would expect the same thing if the speed were every changed to 55 mph.  (The old Bay Area adage on speed: "The speed limit is the route number", i.e., 101 mph on US 101, 280 mph on I-280, etc.)

I guess what frustrates me when I hear talk like this from the Bay Area is that they are just making an increasingly unlivable situation even more so.  So many large companies have moved to the Bay Area in the last couple decades that it has driven home prices up and forced urban sprawl.  Mass transit isn't going to help anyone when you're commuting from places like; Manteca, Tracy, Stockton, Gilroy, and Hollister.  I don't have an answer for those problems but it sure seems like agencies like the MTC are only making those commutes more potentially even more of a burden. 

I can see 55 being feasible on some freeways: everything in the cities of San Francisco (many of which are 55 or even 50 now) and Oakland; US-101 from San Francisco to at least San Mateo and in Marin; I-880 in San Jose; and I-80 between the maze and Richmond.

I have a hard time seeing anything below 65 on I-280 and much of I-680, among other places. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85th percentile on I-280 between I-380 and CA-85 is well over 70 mph.

[Max Rockatansky]

To me, the "congestion pricing" plans sound consistent with the long-held MTC plan to add (what they call) "Express lanes" to freeways throughout the entire Bay Area.  Express lanes are currently on parts of I-880, CA 237 and I-680, and are under construction on other parts of I-680, I-880 and US 101.  As the counties control where the bulk of the state transportation funding goes in California, I can see why MTC wants the county buy-off on their plans.

As to the reducing speeds, virtually no one in the Bay Area observes the 65 mph speed limits on freeway anyway, so I would expect the same thing if the speed were every changed to 55 mph.  (The old Bay Area adage on speed: "The speed limit is the route number", i.e., 101 mph on US 101, 280 mph on I-280, etc.)

I guess what frustrates me when I hear talk like this from the Bay Area is that they are just making an increasingly unlivable situation even more so.  So many large companies have moved to the Bay Area in the last couple decades that it has driven home prices up and forced urban sprawl.  Mass transit isn't going to help anyone when you're commuting from places like; Manteca, Tracy, Stockton, Gilroy, and Hollister.  I don't have an answer for those problems but it sure seems like agencies like the MTC are only making those commutes more potentially even more of a burden. 

I can see 55 being feasible on some freeways: everything in the cities of San Francisco (many of which are 55 or even 50 now) and Oakland; US-101 from San Francisco to at least San Mateo and in Marin; I-880 in San Jose; and I-80 between the maze and Richmond.

I have a hard time seeing anything below 65 on I-280 and much of I-680, among other places. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85th percentile on I-280 between I-380 and CA-85 is well over 70 mph.

I would say 75-80 from my own observations having driven it so much.  55mph would be an absolute joke on freeways like that and nobody would follow it.

[sprjus4]

^ Unfortunately, 55 mph on freeways with 70-80 mph 85th percentile speeds are the reality here in the East. Almost zero compliance or strict enforcement.

[SeriesE]

To me, the "congestion pricing" plans sound consistent with the long-held MTC plan to add (what they call) "Express lanes" to freeways throughout the entire Bay Area.  Express lanes are currently on parts of I-880, CA 237 and I-680, and are under construction on other parts of I-680, I-880 and US 101.  As the counties control where the bulk of the state transportation funding goes in California, I can see why MTC wants the county buy-off on their plans.

As to the reducing speeds, virtually no one in the Bay Area observes the 65 mph speed limits on freeway anyway, so I would expect the same thing if the speed were every changed to 55 mph.  (The old Bay Area adage on speed: "The speed limit is the route number", i.e., 101 mph on US 101, 280 mph on I-280, etc.)

I guess what frustrates me when I hear talk like this from the Bay Area is that they are just making an increasingly unlivable situation even more so.  So many large companies have moved to the Bay Area in the last couple decades that it has driven home prices up and forced urban sprawl.  Mass transit isn't going to help anyone when you're commuting from places like; Manteca, Tracy, Stockton, Gilroy, and Hollister.  I don't have an answer for those problems but it sure seems like agencies like the MTC are only making those commutes more potentially even more of a burden. 

I can see 55 being feasible on some freeways: everything in the cities of San Francisco (many of which are 55 or even 50 now) and Oakland; US-101 from San Francisco to at least San Mateo and in Marin; I-880 in San Jose; and I-80 between the maze and Richmond.

I have a hard time seeing anything below 65 on I-280 and much of I-680, among other places. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85th percentile on I-280 between I-380 and CA-85 is well over 70 mph.

I would say 75-80 from my own observations having driven it so much.  55mph would be an absolute joke on freeways like that and nobody would follow it.

In my experience, I'm passing a lot of cars if I'm driving 70 mph on Bay Area freeways. Most tend to cruise around 65 mph, with a small percentage of people going 75+
Bay Area drivers definitely drive slower than Los Angeles drivers.

[sparker]

To me, the "congestion pricing" plans sound consistent with the long-held MTC plan to add (what they call) "Express lanes" to freeways throughout the entire Bay Area.  Express lanes are currently on parts of I-880, CA 237 and I-680, and are under construction on other parts of I-680, I-880 and US 101.  As the counties control where the bulk of the state transportation funding goes in California, I can see why MTC wants the county buy-off on their plans.

As to the reducing speeds, virtually no one in the Bay Area observes the 65 mph speed limits on freeway anyway, so I would expect the same thing if the speed were every changed to 55 mph.  (The old Bay Area adage on speed: "The speed limit is the route number", i.e., 101 mph on US 101, 280 mph on I-280, etc.)

I guess what frustrates me when I hear talk like this from the Bay Area is that they are just making an increasingly unlivable situation even more so.  So many large companies have moved to the Bay Area in the last couple decades that it has driven home prices up and forced urban sprawl.  Mass transit isn't going to help anyone when you're commuting from places like; Manteca, Tracy, Stockton, Gilroy, and Hollister.  I don't have an answer for those problems but it sure seems like agencies like the MTC are only making those commutes more potentially even more of a burden. 

I can see 55 being feasible on some freeways: everything in the cities of San Francisco (many of which are 55 or even 50 now) and Oakland; US-101 from San Francisco to at least San Mateo and in Marin; I-880 in San Jose; and I-80 between the maze and Richmond.

I have a hard time seeing anything below 65 on I-280 and much of I-680, among other places. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85th percentile on I-280 between I-380 and CA-85 is well over 70 mph.

I would say 75-80 from my own observations having driven it so much.  55mph would be an absolute joke on freeways like that and nobody would follow it.

In my experience, I'm passing a lot of cars if I'm driving 70 mph on Bay Area freeways. Most tend to cruise around 65 mph, with a small percentage of people going 75+
Bay Area drivers definitely drive slower than Los Angeles drivers.

When I went up I-280 to SF on Sunday, most of it was construction-zone posted down to 55.  I generally was doing 65-70 and was being passed on a regular basis.  And not a single CHP or "local LEO" vehicle between CA 85 and Daly City.  Freeway speed limits in CA are generally treated as a suggestion -- one that few take to heart!

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

When I went up I-280 to SF on Sunday, most of it was construction-zone posted down to 55.  I generally was doing 65-70 and was being passed on a regular basis.  And not a single CHP or "local LEO" vehicle between CA 85 and Daly City.  Freeway speed limits in CA are generally treated as a suggestion -- one that few take to heart!

That section of 280 has always been a suggestion at least; on frequent drives to the Capitol Expressway area when I was there 75 mph put me right in the median speed of the flow of traffic.

On the overall idea of congestion pricing/tolling, this would be a good idea with the uber-important caveat that transit actually does its job. The BART extensions and all the Caltrain improvements (especially the Transbay connection, electrification, and for the love of God a Transbay connection that looks to be the Dumbarton cut-off as of this moment) must be heavily invested in, completed, AND built upon. The Bay is in a much better transit spot than LA but there are still gaps in the system (SF-Marin, another transbay connection for both road and rail, and a less ethereal SJ-Gilroy connection) that are just as important to facilitate even distribution of travellers and commuters.

[SeriesE]

Most people from what I see don't observe work zone speed limits, despite the doubled fine warnings.

[doorknob60]

Most people from what I see don't observe work zone speed limits, despite the doubled fine warnings.

I know this is the Southwest board, but I was in Covington, KY a couple weeks ago, and I-71 just south of the border had a 45 MPH work zone speed limit, down from 55-65. Average speeds were 65-75, I was definitely going close to 75 much of the time, particularly in thicker traffic (when I drove to the airport at 6 AM in light traffic I kept it below 65). Going 45 would be very hazardous with the speed differential. That seems pretty standard in most places I've been, but that's probably the most extreme example I've experienced.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most people from what I see don't observe work zone speed limits, despite the doubled fine warnings.

I know this is the Southwest board, but I was in Covington, KY a couple weeks ago, and I-71 just south of the border had a 45 MPH work zone speed limit, down from 55-65. Average speeds were 65-75, I was definitely going close to 75 much of the time, particularly in thicker traffic (when I drove to the airport at 6 AM in light traffic I kept it below 65). Going 45 would be very hazardous with the speed differential. That seems pretty standard in most places I've been, but that's probably the most extreme example I've experienced.

ADOT has tried the 45 MPH work zone limit on rural freeways for years and nobody ever paid attention to it.  Likewise setting an arbitrary 55 MPH speed limit would be outright ignored by drivers in the Bay Area.  There a ton of rural two lane roads in the Bay Area that are signed at 55 MPH and nobody can seem to manage to get people to drive that even on those. 

[sparker]

I have a hard time seeing anything below 65 on I-280 and much of I-680, among other places. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85th percentile on I-280 between I-380 and CA-85 is well over 70 mph.

That's certainly a "no shit, Sherlock" situation.  I was topping out between 65-70 primarily because I had over 350 pounds of speaker in the back of the SUV wrapped in moving blankets that I was trying to keep from shifting -- and I was passed with at least 15-20 mph to spare (even more with the numerous Teslas that are on the local freeways these days).  I'd guess an 85th percentile application would translate to somewhere around 78 mph on I-280 between CA 85 and CA 92 and maybe a little less north of there, where there are more interchanges. 

[DTComposer]

I have a hard time seeing anything below 65 on I-280 and much of I-680, among other places. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85th percentile on I-280 between I-380 and CA-85 is well over 70 mph.

That's certainly a "no shit, Sherlock" situation.  I was topping out between 65-70 primarily because I had over 350 pounds of speaker in the back of the SUV wrapped in moving blankets that I was trying to keep from shifting -- and I was passed with at least 15-20 mph to spare (even more with the numerous Teslas that are on the local freeways these days).  I'd guess an 85th percentile application would translate to somewhere around 78 mph on I-280 between CA 85 and CA 92 and maybe a little less north of there, where there are more interchanges. 

While I had my learner's permit (before the NMSL was repealed, so the speed limit was still 55) my father would have me drive I-280 to my great-aunt's house in Burlingame. He told me to keep it between 70-75 on this freeway or else "everyone will be on top of your ass." On other freeways he had me keep it at 60-65.

[michravera]

I just read a rather disturbing article:  https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-highway-tolling-eyed-in-bay-area/article_76f88c4e-e106-11ea-a1db-0b8015584f6c.html

As part of a long-term planning exercise, the Bay Area MTC is proposing congestion pricing on all lanes of freeways where mass transit is an available option, as well as reducing speed limits to 55 MPH.  I'm sure that both of these proposals are going to be very unpopular, especially the tolling of general purpose freeway lanes.  My personal prediction is that these proposals are going to be taken off the table pretty quickly, especially if they are unable to get buy-in from the various counties.

My understanding is that this would be illegal. Back in the late 1960 or early 1970s, the state was sued about the introduction of HOV lanes into existing lanes. My understanding is that HOV lanes in California must be NEW construction and this goes also for tolls. In short, you can't start charging for something that was provided for free and you can't restrict based upon occupancy that which was previously unrestricted.

As to speed limits, those can legally be fluid. But, by law, speed limits must be based upon "inobvious safety factors not automatically considered by responsible drivers". This usually means "something like the 85th percentile" unless there is something really unusual about the road. So, they could probably introduce variable speed limits and make them slow during congestions (which probably wouldn't matter, because they would be speed limits that you probably couldn't greatly exceed anyway).

[sprjus4]

This usually means "something like the 85th percentile" unless there is something really unusual about the road.

Again, tell this to anywhere on the East Coast 

[michravera]

This usually means "something like the 85th percentile" unless there is something really unusual about the road.

Again, tell this to anywhere on the East Coast 

CVC 22358.5:
It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.

CVC 22350:
No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

[sparker]

This usually means "something like the 85th percentile" unless there is something really unusual about the road.

Again, tell this to anywhere on the East Coast 

CVC 22358.5:
It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.

CVC 22350:
No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

That last phrase of CVD 22350 is a bit troublesome, and might well serve as the instigation -- if applied by a jurisdiction wishing to lower speed limits to a minimal (i.e. 15-20 mph) level due to a perception that anything exceeding that poses a risk to pedestrians or cyclists.  The "reasonable & prudent" edict -- which used to be applied to rural roads lacking basic speed limits in the pre-55-maximum days (1974-87; Montana was famous for such, applied to Interstates as well as conventional rural highways), could conceivably be wielded by cities -- and effectively "turned on its head" -- to effect a blanket lowering of street speeds in the name of safety.  I'd expect a rash of litigation would that occur.  Question: as this particular phrase is part of the CA vehicle code, are there similar codicils in other states?  I know that in parts of Seattle a program of general street speed reduction is being considered or even deployed in the field; does the language of the WA vehicle codes allow or even enhance such a course of action?