Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway

[cpzilliacus]

KNX-1070: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway

Drivers on a busy stretch of the 110 Freeway will soon be able to cruise right on out of the congestion — for a price.

Starting this weekend, Metro is debuting new express lanes that drivers can use after paying for a transponder.

It's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Los Angeles to open I-110 METRO EXPRESSLANES Saturday Nov 10, dynamic pricing tested Monday

Los Angeles Metro and Caltrans open the first of two major toll express lanes facilities this coming Saturday November 10. Their first big trial with variable tolls managing traffic will be in the Monday rush hour Nov 12. That's the express lanes on the I-110 Harbor Freeway which heads due south out of downtown LA to the junction with the I-405 in Torrance. Their brand-name is Metro ExpressLanes.

The I-110 ExpressLanes' twin, the I-10 ExpressLanes on the I-10 San Bernardino Freeway head due east out of downtown LA, and is due to begin with tolls "early 2013."

The two projects are in key commuter corridors and involve conversion of HOV (high occupancy vehicle or carpool/transit) lanes to HOT lanes (high occupancy or toll.)  Cost of the project is put at $230m, mostly paid for with a federal grant under the FHWA's Value Pricing Program.

[agentsteel53]

put some in on 405 and now we're talking.

[cpzilliacus]

Virginia is in the process of building HOV/Toll lanes in the Northern Virginia part of the Commonwealth, and new lanes will open later this month (November 2012) on I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County.  Details in this thread:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.0

[cpzilliacus]

put some in on 405 and now we're talking.

Wonder if the narrow width of most of the existing HOV lanes on I-405 in Los Angeles and Orange Counties might be inhibiting such a conversion?

[deathtopumpkins]

It's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.

Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.

[cpzilliacus]

It's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.

Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.

The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)).  If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.

My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.

[myosh_tino]

My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.

Tell that to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim! 

[kendancy66]

It's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.

Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.

The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)).  If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.

My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.

It doesn't bother me.  Just don't tell me I'm part of the Inland empire or River-tucky

[jrouse]

It's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.

Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.

The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)).  If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.

My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.

I found it very interesting that OCTA's proposal to put HOT lanes in on I-405 was completely shot down by its board.  The proposal was based on the premise that the 91 Express Lanes are considered very successful, and since that project has such a high level of support, they apparently thought that support would carry over to the 405 corridor.  They were wrong.  They're two totally different markets, and the cities and residents along I-405 weren't going for the concept, for a variety of reasons. 

These projects in Los Angeles will have their own challenges, primarily with the requirement that all users must now carry FasTrak, including carpoolers. 

I also heard that there is a USC game at the Coliseum on the 10th, so the tolling system on I-110 will get its first workout on its first day.  They wanted to open on a Saturday of a 3-day weekend in order to make sure that all the bugs were worked out before the regular commute started, but they didn't pay attention to the football schedule, and by the time they realized there was a game that day, it was too late to change the opening date (would have required Metro board action).

[cpzilliacus]

It's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.

Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.

The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)).  If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.

My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.

I found it very interesting that OCTA's proposal to put HOT lanes in on I-405 was completely shot down by its board.  The proposal was based on the premise that the 91 Express Lanes are considered very successful, and since that project has such a high level of support, they apparently thought that support would carry over to the 405 corridor.  They were wrong.  They're two totally different markets, and the cities and residents along I-405 weren't going for the concept, for a variety of reasons.

Your comment about the different travel markets makes sense.  I-405 (San Diego Freeway) is about as close as Los Angeles and Orange Counties get to having a "beltway," and the trips on it would seem to be circumferential in nature, but the trips on Ca. 91 are radial.  Also, getting from Riverside County to Orange County, or vice versa, is pretty difficult without Ca. 91.  But there are alternatives to nearly all of I-405 (and in Orange County, the Ca. 73 toll road is one of those alternatives). 

These projects in Los Angeles will have their own challenges, primarily with the requirement that all users must now carry FasTrak, including carpoolers.

There is a similar requirement for the new toll lanes on I-495 in Fairfax County, Virginia.  Though thanks to Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) and toll roads to the north in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and New York, I think the "natural" E-ZPass penetration rate is already pretty high.  But it will be interesting to see if the operator of the 495 lanes ends up hitting a lot of vehicles with an "administrative fee" for not having a transponder.

I also heard that there is a USC game at the Coliseum on the 10th, so the tolling system on I-110 will get its first workout on its first day.  They wanted to open on a Saturday of a 3-day weekend in order to make sure that all the bugs were worked out before the regular commute started, but they didn't pay attention to the football schedule, and by the time they realized there was a game that day, it was too late to change the opening date (would have required Metro board action).

Well, I suppose we will find out how well it works, won't we? 

In my opinion, I-110 (Harbor Freeway) was always a good candiate for HOV/Toll lanes.  Most of the corridor has decent separation from the non-HOV lanes (including the very cool viaduct at the north end).

[jrouse]

I'm a little surprised that this topic isn't generating as much conversation as the posts about the new 495 Express Lanes.  Maybe because that's due to the scarcity of roadgeeks here on the west coast.

It's been a week now, and I haven't received any phone calls about this project since it opened, much to my surprise.  I did receive several calls from members of the public about the project in the last couple of weeks.  I spoke with the acting deputy for traffic operations in District 7 this week and he told me that the majority of the complaints are being e-mailed directly to the Caltrans director, who is sending them back to the district for response.  Apparently the biggest controversy is related to the requirement that all users, including HOV, must carry a transponder.  The concern is that this hurts the casual carpooler, because it requires opening up an account, and paying a $3/month maintenance fee (the fee is not in effect yet, but it will take effect when the companion Express Lanes on I-10 open up next spring).

Interestingly, the requirement that all users carry a transponder appears to violate state law.  If you follow the chain of enabling legislation for these HOT lanes, there is a requirement that HOVs have unrestricted access to the lanes at all times when they are operating as HOT lanes.  Our Bay Area district (District 4) team caught onto this when their MPO, MTC, started talking about requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder on their planned Express Lanes.  We talked to an attorney in our Legal division about it, and he said it's pretty clear that we can't require carpoolers to carry a transponder on these facilities, as it restricts access.  (The legislation was modeled after the I-15 Express Lanes in San Diego, where carpoolers don't need a transponder).   We have talked to LA Metro about this statutory requirement, and they are aware of it, but they also point out that they are a one-year demonstration project, and that we should consider the carpool tag as one of the things that is being demonstrated.  My personal opinion (I am not speaking for my employer here) is that there may be some major fallout from this requirement, especially if people start putting two and two together and challenging it in court.

Finally, a personal observation.  I was down in southern California this weekend for a whirlwind trip to Disneyland, and we flew over the lanes as we approached LAX.  They appeared pretty empty, while it looked like there was a small backup on the northbound general purpose lanes.  We took the SuperShuttle from LAX to our hotel, and we took I-105 east, so I saw the toll rates signs for the northbound Express Lanes.  As I recall, it was $1.50 to 39th Street and $1.70 to Adams Blvd.

(For those who just have to ask, the reason why we flew into LAX versus SNA was because the schedules were better; the fares were the same).

[myosh_tino]

So the I-110 express lanes are a one year project????

I can't believe LA Metro would be willing to spend all that money setting up tolling equipment, installing signs, etc just for a one year "trial".

And I agree with you that forcing all users including carpoolers to have a transponder is a terrible idea especially if there's a $3/month maintenance fee.  Thank god the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) doesn't charge such a fee.

[jrouse]

So the I-110 express lanes are a one year project????

Yes, it is a one-year demonstration.  Obviously they hope it will become permanent.

I can't believe LA Metro would be willing to spend all that money setting up tolling equipment, installing signs, etc just for a one year "trial".

Actually, most of the funding came from the federal Congestion Relief Demonstration Program, which was a successor to the Urban Partnership Agreement program.  Metro used some matching funds, but federal transportation dollars paid for most of it.

And I agree with you that forcing all users including carpoolers to have a transponder is a terrible idea especially if there's a $3/month maintenance fee.  Thank god the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) doesn't charge such a fee.

I always tell people to get their transponder through BATA for precisely that reason.  Trouble is, though, BATA is not issuing the switchable transponders, which are needed for the toll-free passage. Only OCTA, TCA, and LA Metro are issuing them.

[myosh_tino]

And I agree with you that forcing all users including carpoolers to have a transponder is a terrible idea especially if there's a $3/month maintenance fee.  Thank god the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) doesn't charge such a fee.

I always tell people to get their transponder through BATA for precisely that reason.  Trouble is, though, BATA is not issuing the switchable transponders, which are needed for the toll-free passage. Only OCTA, TCA, and LA Metro are issuing them.

If I recall correctly, the BATA may charge a fee if a "significant" amount of toll activity occurs outside of the S.F. Bay Area.

FasTrak customers should open their account with the toll facility of primary usage. Customers may be charged a service maintenance fee if it is determined that the majority of their toll activity occurs at another facility.

While most of my usage has been in the Bay Area, I have used my transponder on the CA-73 toll road and the CA-91 Express Lanes.

[jrouse]

We were recently contacted by Metro regarding a need they identified for additional signing on the I-110 Express Lanes.  They have had a major problem with violations (12,000 in the first 2 weeks), so they wanted to get some guidance from us on how to convey the message that everyone needs FasTrak.

I worked with some of our people from District 4 to get a copy of plans for the signs they installed when they started tolling HOVs at the Bay Area toll bridges.  I shared that with Metro as well as some examples of signing from the I-85 Express Lane in Atlanta and the I-495 Express Lane in Virginia.  I also began to realize that Metro has another issue on the I-110 project, and that is the fact that carpools who want the toll-free passage can only get it with the switchable FasTrak tag, not the traditional, "legacy" FasTrak tags that have been issued in California for many years now.  I noted this when I sent them that material.

On November 29 & 30 I had an opportunity to travel to DC on some business, and in the course of riding SuperShuttle to and from Dulles Airport I had the chance to see the signing for the I-495 Express Lanes and to travel next to them for a short segment. 

When I came back from my trip, I sent a followup email to my contacts at Metro letting them know of my observations.  It was at that point that the media had been told of the 12,000 violations in 2 weeks, and it was getting some attention.  I had also had an opportunity to look at comments on the Metro Express Lanes Facebook page, and I could see from the posts on there that there was a lot of confusion.  This time around, I placed some emphasis on some other things that I thought they could fix.  This included the information on their pricing signs.  They had a message on their signs, "HOV 2+ No Toll".  I told them that per the MUTCD, they should not be displaying this message on those signs, since they are requiring everybody to carry a tag, and the pricing signs shown in the MUTCD for those types of facilities eliminate that message.   I also again emphasized the need to distinguish the switchable FasTrak tag from the legacy FasTrak tag, perhaps following the I-495 model of "EZPass Flex", and calling it "FasTrak Flex".

To their credit, Metro listened to some of what I had to say, and as of yesterday morning, they are now displaying a different message on their pricing sign, "HOV 2+ $0 w/FasTrak".  This doesn't complete address my concerns regarding the need to distinguish the switchable tag from the legacy tag, but I see it as a step in the right direction, and I hope it won't complicate matters too much.  Unfortunately, their pricing signs cannot accommodate the term "switchable" or anything like that. 

Obviously the "FasTrak Flex" concept is something that is going to require a much larger marketing and outreach effort and I don't know what their position is on that, although from what I'm hearing from them, they do know that is an issue.  I suggested rolling that new marketing concept out when they open the I-10 Express Lane next spring.  We'll see what they do.

(Interestingly, I also had a look at the Transportation Corridor Agencies' Facebook page when I was looking at the Metro Facebook page.  TCA operates the toll roads in Orange County.  They had a post on their page indicating that people needed FasTrak to use the I-110 Express Lane in Los Angeles, and that HOVs with FasTrak got toll free passage.  It was misleading, and I posted a comment on that post stating that it was misleading, because only the switchable tag could be used for toll-free passage.  They deleted my comment, and I put it back in.  They wound up deleting the post altogether.  What was really sad is that TCA is planning to issue those same switchable tags!)

In the meantime, in addition to the changes on the pricing signs, they are moving forward with plans to install more signs on the median barriers indicating that all users must have FasTrak.  They have also extended the grace period for people who violate.  It was supposed to be 30 days; now it will go through the end of the year.

[jrouse]

Some articles on the high violation rates:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/lanes-379128-metro-angeles.html

http://zev.lacounty.gov/news/thousands-hit-with-toll-lane-citations

[cpzilliacus]

We were recently contacted by Metro regarding a need they identified for additional signing on the I-110 Express Lanes.  They have had a major problem with violations (12,000 in the first 2 weeks), so they wanted to get some guidance from us on how to convey the message that everyone needs FasTrak.

If you need more images of signs on the I-495 Express Lanes or Maryland's Route 200 (ICC), let me know.

[myosh_tino]

I now realize why camera toll enforcement wasn't used on the I-680 Express Lane in Alameda and Santa Clara counties.  It would have necessitated the use of switchable transponders because carpoolers still get to use the lane for free.  It would have also required ALL users to get FasTrak.

Unfortunately, I don't see a real clear solution.  Toll enforcement on the I-680 Express Lane is done by the CHP observing whether an express lane user...

1. Is a solo driver and has a valid transponder (green indicator light at the tolling point)
2. Is a carpooler (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes 2 or more in vehicle)
3. Is a cheater (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes only 1 occupant)

Since the CHP is not on scene 100% of the time, it's unknown how extensive the cheating is. 

[jrouse]

I now realize why camera toll enforcement wasn't used on the I-680 Express Lane in Alameda and Santa Clara counties.  It would have necessitated the use of switchable transponders because carpoolers still get to use the lane for free.  It would have also required ALL users to get FasTrak.

Unfortunately, I don't see a real clear solution.  Toll enforcement on the I-680 Express Lane is done by the CHP observing whether an express lane user...

1. Is a solo driver and has a valid transponder (green indicator light at the tolling point)
2. Is a carpooler (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes 2 or more in vehicle)
3. Is a cheater (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes only 1 occupant)

Since the CHP is not on scene 100% of the time, it's unknown how extensive the cheating is. 

You are absolutely correct.

MTC is currently developing a series of Express Lane projects, and one of them (I-880) will tie in with the SR-237 Express Lane.  MTC is looking to require switchable tags (a statutory change is needed for this, see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8029.msg185480#msg185480).  This will require VTA, the operator of the 237 project, to change their operational policies in order to ensure a seamless system.  Eventually, the I-680 project will connect to future projects to the north, and the operational policies on that project will also have to be revisited.

[myosh_tino]

To be quite honest, I'm surprised that MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) didn't require the use of a switchable transponder going all of the way back to when FasTrak was first implemented on the area's toll bridges.  A switchable transponder would have made sense since the toll bridges allowed carpools to cross (at that time) for free.  Didn't Gary Richards of the San Jose Mercury News (Mr. Roadshow) field complaints on this issue?

If a carpooler had a transponder in the car and was going to use the carpool lane, he/she would have had to put the transponder in its mylar bag to keep from getting changed a toll.  This was a major inconvenience in my opinion but was made moot when carpoolers were charged a discounted toll ($2.50) to cross.  However, the Express Lane on I-680 would have reopened this issue.

[Plutonic Panda]

Are there any solid plans to extend the express lanes on the 110 through downtown? They have left the end of the 110 express lanes before you get to the 10 unfinished but they still stick out like they intend on extending them someday.

[djsekani]

Are there any solid plans to extend the express lanes on the 110 through downtown? They have left the end of the 110 express lanes before you get to the 10 unfinished but they still stick out like they intend on extending them someday.

They were supposed to eventually connect to the El Monte Busway in some manner, I haven't seen any design specs on how that would look. There was also a plan to connect the two busways via HOV lanes on surface streets, but that faced heavy opposition from downtown urbanists.

[Plutonic Panda]

Are there any solid plans to extend the express lanes on the 110 through downtown? They have left the end of the 110 express lanes before you get to the 10 unfinished but they still stick out like they intend on extending them someday.

They were supposed to eventually connect to the El Monte Busway in some manner, I haven't seen any design specs on how that would look. There was also a plan to connect the two busways via HOV lanes on surface streets, but that faced heavy opposition from downtown urbanists.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isn't happening. 

[djsekani]

Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isn't happening. 

The 101 needs an express lane worse than any other freeway in the region, but the most congested stretches are too space-constrained for that to happen. There's also that lane-shifting weirdness at the 405 interchange.