BAY AREA:Sonoma 101 Pricing Stalls though Voters Ditch Tax

But Bay area officials say that despite the ballot the toll buy-in plan has no champion in the county government and is not going anywhere for the moment. However there are ongoing discussions about pricing with San Mateo Co. The candidate in dicussion is US-101 there, a highway better known as the Bayshore Freeway. This is the easterly of two motorway standard highways (the other is I-280) running south out of San Francisco proper past the SF Int Airport through the Silicon Valley cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunny Vale, Santa Clara and San Jose at the southern end of the Bay. It varies between 6 and 10-lanes wide, and is quite congested.

Kimsey said the other possible prospect for pricing is I-680 east of the Bay, another north-south artery which carries highly directional commuter traffic from the economical housing areas of Contra Costa and Alameda counties to jobs in Silicon Va. (See TRnl#11 Jan 97 p3)

On US-101 in Sonoma Co a Parsons Brinckerhoff report “Sonoma County Variable Pricing Study” earlier this year (see TRnl#28 Jun 98 p1) suggested that either a 24km-$85m or a 40km-$128m project building dynamically priced toll express lanes in the median of US-101 – the major north-south artery – could make the widening from 2x2 to 2x3 lanes self-financing. HOV3 carpools would be carried free in the third toll express lanes.

The report stated: “Variable pricing by time of day and distance traveled would provide the most economically efficient tolling strategy... Electronic toll readers (installed on an overhead cantilever arm) together with on board vehicle transponders is the preferred method of charging...” Entry and exit to the HOT lanes would be by gaps in the buffer markings and the separator sticks, allowing a weave through the unrestricted lanes.

Variable message signs would show changing toll rates: “Variable tolls (which vary by time of day and highway segment based on congestion levels) greatly enhance revenue generation and optimize speeds on the toll lane itself. Varying the toll rates by segment yields between 22% and 42% more revenue than a flat per-mile rate throughout the facility. The variable rate also smooths out demand by assuring that no segment is overused because it is underpriced or underused because it is overpriced.”

Doug Kimsey, study project manager at the area planning organization told us the champions of taxes say they prefer to try again in another two years than to go forward with a toll express system. They think that by repackaging their tax-based projects they can win in 2000. They wanted $850m for a mix of local roads, HOV lanes, bus and commuter rail.

The PB report said of the toll express project on the Country’s US101: “The bottom line is that this project is financially, physically and operationally feasible. The revenue it would generate would be substantial enough to pay for (operating) costs, and a very significant portion (and perhaps all) of the capital (cost) it would incur. The better utilization of new (HOT) lanes would provide a benefit in travel time and reliability to the toll paying users, no serious detriment to the non-paying HOV users, and a potential benefit in reduced traffic congestion to the users of the adjacent mixed-flow lanes.”

The report said in a burst of real poetry:

“If a roadway facility provides enough economic benefits to justify its development, there usually is an efficient pricing structure that will capture these economic benefits and permit the facility to be largely self-financed.” (Contacts: Doug Kimsey MTC 510 464 7794 dkimsey@mtc.dst.ca.us, Jim Bourgart PB 415 243 4750 bourgart@pbworld.com,

Randall Pozdena 503 222 6060 pozdena@portland.econw.com)