Modeling HOT Lane Revenue, Tolls and Usage

1
Developing Regional HOT Network
October 2, 2008 Carolyn Clevenger Planner, MTC
2
What are HOT Lanes?

• High-Occupancy Vehicle/Toll Lanes
• HOV lanes with a twist
• Carpools, buses free of charge
• Single drivers can choose to pay a toll
• Electronic tolls
• Variable tolls to manage demand

I-25 Express Lanes Toll Schedule
3
Early HOT Lanes (1995-1998)
Orange County SR-91 (10 miles) Peak toll 10
Houston I-10 (13 miles) Peak toll 2
San Diego I-15 (8 miles) Peak toll 4, average 2
4
Next Generation (2005-2008)
Seattle SR167 (9 miles) Peak toll 8 Average
toll 1.30
Denver I-25 (7 miles) Peak toll 3.25 Average
toll 1.50
Minneapolis I-394 (10 miles) Peak toll 4
5
Opening Soon
San Diego I-15 extension (2008)
Miami I-95 (2008)

• Bay Area (2010-2012)
• I-680 (Alameda/Santa Clara counties)
• I-580 (Alameda County)
• Route 85 (Santa Clara County)

6
Bay Area HOT Network
6
7
Why a Bay Area HOT Network?

• Completion of HOV network 20 to 40 years faster
• Reduce congestion and emissions
• Advantages of regional approach
• Traffic forecasts are higher when a full network
  is in place as travel is not limited to county
  boundaries
• Viable financing plan using bridge toll backstop
• Consistent Caltrans design exceptions
• Common tolls across a full network avoids
  confusion and is politically fair
• Selective tolling creates public backlash on
  roads that are free and those that are not

8
HOT Lanes Complete Faster than HOV
HOT Lanes - Financed
Preferred design
Lane-miles
Rapid delivery
HOV Lanes - Pay-As-You-Go
9
Benefits of HOT Network (Compared to HOV
Pay-as-You-Go)

• Capital cost, emissions and travel time savings
  (through 2050)

10
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Feasibility Studies (fall
2007)

• Regional HOT network is feasible
• Can help manage HOV lanes as demand grows
• Design preferences outlined
• Enforcement is a major consideration

11
Phase 2 Further Study Rapid Delivery Approach
(Spring 2008)

• Faster and less expensive approach
• Best fit Maximize available pavement
• Minimize new right-of-way and environmental
  review
• Design exceptions required
• Project delivery innovations required

12
Comparison of Typical Sections
Preferred HOT Design
Rapid Delivery HOT Design
12
13
Start-Up vs. Existing Credit
14
Net Revenue Distributed by Corridor of
Generation

• Potential Corridor Expenditures
• I-580/680
• Express bus/BRT and rail
• ITS management technologies
• US 101/SR 85
• Transit 2000 Measure A capital and operating
  needs
• Local road rehabilitation transportation
  projects
• Toll Bridges (Regional)
• Corridor mobility improvements TBD

15
HOT Network Principles (adopted July 2008)

• Collaboration and cooperation
  CMAs, Caltrans, CHP, BATA
• Corridor-based focus and implementation
  user orientation
• Reinvestment within the corridor
  capital and operating
• Corridor investment plans guide reinvestment
• Simple system consistent design, signage,
  marketing
• Toll collection BATA
• Financing could include BATA toll
  bridge enterprise

16
Regional Network Needs Regional Partnership

• All partners bring diverse strengths
• CMAs HOT pioneers and delivery innovations
• Caltrans freeway ownership, operations and
  construction
• CHP enforcement
• BATA toll financing and electronic collection

17
Next Step Legislation in 2009

• Advisory Committee to flesh out principles
• CMAs, Caltrans, CHP, MTC/BATA
• Governance financing considerations
• Corridor investment plans and network phasing
• Operating policies
• Technical studies
• Refine design and costs (Phase 3 underway)
• Review demand and revenue (fall/spring)
• Coordination with ongoing
  projects programs

18
Thank You