Any politician who votes to sell off our public assets to the highest bidder should be removed from office and breaches his or her duty to protect what we as a tax payers own. 

HOT lanes encourage those who can afford the $1 a mile toll to not carpool and leaves the rest of us to suffer.  I think that instead of being able to pay one's way out of having to carpool, we should install a progressive HOV system - many HOV-3 lanes, a few HOV-2 lanes and one HOV-1 lane during rush hours. 

Secondly, why are we selling our roads to private and foreign companies?  Isn't this the worst form of corporate welfare?  We (the public) take the risk, and the private companies get the rewards?

Here is a letter of mine that was published last year in the Alexandria Times:

On October, 24th,  with little fanfare, V-DOT moved into the second phase of its high occupancy toll ("HOT") lanes project.  A spokesperson for V-DOT said the project is on a "very aggressive schedule."

Allowing those who can afford to pay the $30 roundtrip toll to drive in lanes designated as high occupancy lanes does absolutely nothing to either resolve our traffic problems, or to help the environment. 

More importantly, encouraging the construction of HOT lanes  basically says to the poor and middle-class, "getting to work for you is less important than it is for us - cram three people into your Yugo and you can drive in 'our' lanes."  Yet, Virginians (we, the people, I think?) are picking up half of the $53 million dollars to "study" the project in this so-called "public/private partnership".  By the way, "public/private partnership" is code for "if money is made it's private profit, but if a project is not economically feasible, then the public is free to take what's left."

Adding more roads is not the best solution to our transportation woes, yet if more roads are built, being in the public domain they should be equally available to all citizens regardless of their wealth.

Too often our politicians take "aggressive schedules" instead of weighing the pros and cons of specific projects to avoid having to confront the electorate.  I say, bring on some healthy debate.

First, congestion tols are only coming for non-hybrid vehicles with less than three people in them.

The beauty of the hot lane system is that carpoolers and buses are still rewarded.

Basically how the system will work is that the HOV people will still ride for free.  Then, if there is any additional capacity to maintain 55 MPH additional vehicles will be let on.  The price will increase as there is less space available to maintain 55 MPH

Again the main point is the current users of the HOV lanes will not be detrimented in anyway.  In fact some of the plans proposals actually extend the HOV/HOT lanes which would be a benefit to current HOV people

I applaud all of these out-of-the-box solutions.  We need new leaders and new ways of thinking from the D and the R side.  This is the true definition of progressive :-)

 

If HOT lanes are so lucrative for private industry, why isn't it lucrative for the state to implement the same? It's my understanding that Texas DOT is building HOT lanes in its state then using the profits to not only pay off the bonds of the project but finance new HOT lanes. What's wrong with our picture?

VDOT overdesigns and it's too expensive. Fluor Daniel underdesigns and it's OK...but they don't need to put in amenities like new pedestrian/bicycle crossings. So we're stuck with a shiny new pig AND the taxpayers are picking up the tab for amenities. The losers are us. Also, all financial details are non FOIA-able as these numbers are considered "proprietary".

If we're going to think outside the box, let's look at what's in other state's boxes before embracing Public Private Partnerships.

I'm re-posting below a great article by William Vincent about Bus Rapid Transit, written for the FairGrowth Network awhile back.  The great thing about it is that the dedicated BRT roadways can go in the existing road medians (where the current plan is to put an elevated train).  And it is flexible, allows for both express and local runs, and the roadway can be used by emergency vehicles when necessary.

Imagine a Bus.....Really!
By William Vincent
October 21, 2005

Imagine a high-tech, fast, and affordable rapid transit system in Northern Virginia. Stations are bright and attractive, vehicles are modern and clean and arrive every few minutes, and service is express to your destination or local to nearby activity centers. A satellite tracking system sends arrival information to your cell phone and to electronic displays in stations. The system covers the entire region, not just one corridor, and your smart card offers a seamless connection to Metrorail, if you want it.
Sounds great, of course. Now imagine one more thing: the vehicles don't have steel wheels. They have rubber tires.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has become a hot topic in many communities, because it offers the performance of the best US rail transit systems, but at a fraction of the cost. This enables communities to serve many more corridors for a given amount of funding, or to use the savings to fund other priorities, like schools and parks.

But despite the buzz about BRT, not many people know what it is. Even fewer understand its power to fundamentally change the way we think about transportation and growth.

A recent report by the National Academies of Science defined BRT as a "a flexible, high performance rapid transit mode that combines a variety of physical, operating and system elements into a permanently integrated system with a quality image and unique identity."

Although this may sound a bit abstract, it is actually quite revealing. For example, the word "bus" is not included in the definition. That's because the emphasis is on performance, as it should be, not on whether the vehicle has steel wheels or rubber tires.

In fact, the performance of recent BRT systems has been quite astounding. A number of systems have achieved passenger throughputs exceeding 10,000 people per hour in the peak direction, and a few have achieved greater than 25,000 passengers per hour. By contrast, the proposed Dulles Rail Extension has a maximum planned capacity of less than 8,000 passengers per hour.

BRT also has performed quite well in terms of cost. The most expensive BRT systems in the world have cost around $25 million per mile to build. The costs for the first phase of the Dulles Rail extension are well in excess of $160 million per mile, and that's only after significant cuts were made to the original project scope, such as building an elevated train through the heart of Tyson's Corner, instead of putting the system underground, as originally promised.

BRT achieves its performance by focusing on speed and quality. "Speed" can be accomplished in a number of ways, including a dedicated "transitway," fare collection in the station (like Metro), and express service that enables passengers to skip unwanted stops.

"Quality" means offering a service that takes people where they want to go, when they want to go. It also means advanced vehicles and stations, so that passengers travel in comfort and safety in a reliable, attractive system.

A system that provides a fast, high quality service will attract riders, regardless of whether it has rubber tires or steel wheels. The real issue is the potential impact on the community. This is where BRT can be truly transformative.

The lower cost of BRT enables far more to be deployed for a given funding level. For example, the $4 billion currently earmarked for 23 miles of rail in the Dulles Corridor could be used to provide over 160 miles of high quality BRT service. This would get many more people off the roads and onto public transportation. It also would be more equitable, especially for the parts of Fairfax County that will not be served by Dulles Rail, yet must pay some of the costs.

A larger public transportation network also means more opportunities for transit-oriented development (TOD). TOD is an excellent strategy for reducing the demand for vehicle trips. BRT has sparked TOD in a number of cities, including Boston, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, and Brisbane.

Under current plans, however, TOD is being crammed around a handful of planned and existing Metro stations. This is creating a very public rift in the community, sparking a backlash from people concerned about adding density to an already gridlocked area, preserving open space, saving old trees, and maintaining existing neighborhood character. By creating more opportunities for TOD, BRT enables some of the growth to be spread around, thus minimizing the impact on specific neighborhoods.

Moreover, west of Tyson's Corner, all of the proposed rail stations will be in the middle of a 12 lane highway. At best, this makes good TOD challenging - who wants to live or work in that environment? At worst, it represents billions of dollars that could have been spent on transit in places that are more hospitable to TOD.

The best way to promote TOD is to provide as many opportunities for it as possible. BRT can create these opportunities on a large scale within a reasonable time and budget.

Experience shows that BRT performs as well or better than rail in most applications. BRT is an idea whose time has come. More information about BRT is available at www.gobrt.org.