Metro's John Fasana Champions Congestion Pricing Pilot Program

In July, the Metro Board of Directors approved toll rates to be used on portions of the I-10 and I-110 express lanes. You, in many ways, are the godfather of the effort by Metro to take advantage of these funds and coordinate that program. Why did you take on this project, and why did you vote for its approval?

It goes back to being on the board since 1993, seeing the ever-worsening congestion that we are facing as a region, and realizing that there was another approach that we had never tried within the county. In terms of being a market-based solution, a lot of the academics felt that this was an approach that has merits. Given the needs we have in this county and the difficulty in coming up with additional revenue-if we could come up with additional funds to make capital improvements to our corridors and also encourage more efficient use of our existing resources along the 10 and the 110-it's a good project for us to move forward.

The idea is currently a one-year demonstration project. What are you hoping it will prove or disprove as a solution to the congestion in the region?

It's a one-year demonstration project-probably taking place in 2011-to see if we can guarantee a level of performance in the HOV lanes on the 10 and the 110. Right now they are already congested at certain times. A lot of carpool lanes throughout the county are congested. If we can guarantee a high level of performance-that people move at 45-50 mph and have a reliable choice for a quick commute-it would be a great thing.

There are a lot of constraints on the demonstration project. Two and three passenger cars are still able to use the HOV lanes for free. The program will add single-occupancy vehicles at times that they will not diminish the capacity to get to 45 mph. Is that too limited an experiment? How was the program designed to get the desired results?

Part of it is just the recognition that people in California have always viewed freeways as being free, aside from the issue that we don't have the revenue to build new freeways. The gas tax, which hasn't risen since the early 90s, does not pay to maintain our existing highway lanes. This program is a chance to introduce the concept into the county in a way that does no harm to existing carpoolers in the system and may even increase performance for them. In a perfect world, this would have been done sooner, before the level of the congestion that we have today had taken over the system.

We are adding another lane along the 10 Freeway between the 605 and the 710 freeways. Some federal dollars are going into that additional lane, which hopefully will create some of the capacity to test this process.

Part of the problem today is that going from a two-person vehicle, to a three- or four-person per vehicle is very arbitrary. It is a very imprecise method of changing the amount of capacity that we carry. Pricing is a much more elegant solution. By varying the pricing you can let in a smaller amount of additional commuters or restrict a smaller number of commuters coming into the lanes in order to keep the performance where it needs to be.

The program has a requirement that net total revenues be reinvested in the corridor where they are generated. Talk a little bit about that policy and about the decision to set the price for the tolls from $0.25 to $1.40. What reaction to that pricing formula is the board experiencing?

One of the appealing things about this process is that we are in a no-lose position. If you use the carpool lane with two occupants, or three during certain hours, you can continue to do so. If you are a single-occupant vehicle heading down the freeway you would have the option to switch into the lane. Because the pricing will be variable and based on congestion, you will get to your destination more quickly. With the additional investment being put into transit options, people will also have those other options. For some people their choice could vary every day. Some days, transit will be a good option for them; on some days they will want to drive as a solo vehicle; on some days they will carpool.

A big part of this is that we are reinvesting the proceeds into the transit on the corridor to really create more redundant and reliable service options. It creates more options than people have today.

The 210 Freeway east of Pasadena was originally a prospect for part of the demonstration. If the current test program works, what is the ability to expand this to other parts of the region?

As people become more comfortable with the program we may have opportunities to expand. One of the problems we ultimately ran into with the 210 is that that HOV lane is too congested right now-with the two-occupant limit on carpoolers-to price additional capacity. There are separate policy issues that need to be addressed. The federal law suggests that Caltrans is out of compliance with a lot of carpool lanes in terms of the speeds that are being realized throughout the system. At some point Caltrans may be faced with increasing the limits in some of the lanes from two or three persons during peak hours. When we start facing those decisions, congestion pricing offers another alternative that is maybe less drastic than switching from two to three passengers.

Supervisor Ridley-Thomas-who wrote the legislation for this program while a state senator-was concerned that the program might be viewed as providing luxury lanes and sought to ensure that a formula was in place to protect those with economic disadvantage. What are your thoughts about how that part of the program ought to roll out over time? What is the technology and capacity to price these to support those who are economically disadvantaged?

Most of us share Supervisor Ridley-Thomas's concerns in that area. It was certainly a concern of a lot of the representatives, particularly along the area of the 10 Freeway carpool lanes. It should be entirely feasible to address those concerns. Whether or not the transponders are coded based on income qualification criteria, there should be a way to allow users that are low-income to use the lanes at a lower-cost. It is something that is possible, something that would need to be consistent, and something that we all support.

What would constitute success a year after the inception of the test program?

We are going to need to look at all the data we acquire over the year. With all of the technology in place, did we have periods during the day where people opted to use the lanes? We will have to determine how successful that was-what the demand was. Were we able to get people to shift out of the mixed-pool lanes into some of the expanded transit options that were created? If we have people on buses and large numbers of people in carpools, then we are getting the most production out of the existing infrastructure and are ultimately saving tax dollars needed to expand capacity. We will have to look at the actual data from our one-year period. From there we will be able to see whether we should continue it, whether we should scrap it, or whether we should modify it in some way.

The collected revenue might be as much as $21 million. That promise reflects a need on the part of Metro and Caltrans to generate new revenues to deal with capacity problems. After some 20 years of being involved in these issues, what do you think about the present capacity of these agencies to deal with congestion?

We haven't had the resources to deal with congestion. Some will argue that Measure R will help-and it certainly will provide some major revenues-but Measure R isn't the only fix. We have to be open to other ideas and options. When we discussed this program early on in the San Gabriel Valley, we strongly urged that if we are putting congestion pricing in place, reinvestment of excess revenue will occur in the same corridor, whether for auxiliary highway networks that run parallel to the tolled infrastructure or for additional transit resources. That is already state law.

There has to be some type of nexus in terms of the benefits. I would hope that people look throughout the county. We are adding lanes on the 405. There are a number of options down the road. Looking at the state budget situation, we can't assume that there is going to be a huge payroll for transportation until they get their house in order. We have to look at other options if we want to have the capacity that this region needs to be competitive.

You are testifying in Washington about the reauthorization of the transportation bill. What will be the agenda that you advance in Washington?

Congress is also going to need to start looking at a successor to the gas tax. The fact that is has remained flat is one issue but the recent oil shocks are a reminder of what happened in the 70s and 80s. We need to come up with another revenue stream to maintain our existing infrastructure, let alone expand it.

You've been part of local government for more than two decades and you've represented the San Gabriel Valley cities as a director to the Metropolitan Transit Agency since its inception. What are the priorities of the San Gabriel Valley cities as they relate to transportation and Metro?

The San Gabriel Valley is looking for expansion of the Pasadena Gold Line further east to the county line. They are looking eventually to the extension of the Gold Line past East Los Angeles, further east through Montebello and out to South El Monte. They are looking at goods movement issues. The growth to the ports is going to come back. As the traffic heads north to the Alameda Corridor, completing the investment plan for the Alameda Corridor east to allow goods to move further east.

The 710 gap closure is a critical project. Coming up with a fix for the 57-60 interchange, where the two freeways come together in the Diamond Bar area, is vital. Some of our freeway intersections like the 605 and the 10 are mixed-master interchanges and are very unsafe. We have some funding in place over the next several years to fix some of that. We also want to expand the network of carpool lanes and encouraging people to carpool or use more transit.

You were recently appointed to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Board. What enticed you to assume this new responsibility?

We have an opportunity over the next several years to get the Gold Line under construction and completed. With the passage of Measure R, the Gold Line has been scheduled for a 2017 time-frame. Those of us that advocate for the Gold Line are trying to look at the current interest and need for jobs in this region. With the economic slowdown, if we can get some attractive bids in at this time, then maybe it makes sense that a contractor finance construction of the line and deliver it a few years earlier. If we can get attractive bids in place, with the demand for steel and concrete as it is now, there might be an opportunity to accelerate the line.

Demands for congestion relief come from every corner of the county. How does the Metro board manage to satisfy the needs with too-few resources in L.A.?

It's difficult. That was one of the issues that some of us had even when Measure R was put forward. We know that if we expand and build a Downtown connector, if we build the Exposition Line, and if we build the subway, there will be benefits from those projects to people in the San Gabriel Valley. They will add value to the transit network. It's the same thing with highway improvements along the 710 in the gateway cities and elsewhere. We know that people live and work in different parts of the county. We know that there are benefits outside our cities.

We need to be open to new opportunities to fund some of these projects and raise the capital needed to expand our infrastructure. That is part of what this congestion pricing demonstration is about. Certainly there is benefit to pricing transportation trips. We are bringing in extra dollars to construct the extra lane capacity on the 10 and buy more buses along the 10. Those are all very positive investments.

Does being open to new opportunities include a congestion mitigation fee to improve the regional arterial network?

That is an active program that Metro is looking at. We are looking at it in San Gabriel Valley. It is hard to say where that is going to come out. I know there are a lot of concerns about the proposal, but at this point everything is on the table.