USDOT:Two-Faced FTA skewers FHWA pricing

In Houston, the HOV lanes are run by Houston Metro, the local transit agency. Metro has been allowing HOV-2s to buy-in to an HOV facility on I-10 (Katy Fwy) during the peak of the rush hour when only HOV3s are eligible for the free ride. The number of HOV2s buying in has been quite small, and with the facility still underutilized, Metro wanted to try SOV buy-in.

In Denver CO I-25 has a HOV2 facility which is also underuilized. This too was funded in part by FTA and the state DOT which runs the lanes like Houston Metro inquired about allowing SOV buy-in. It has been rebuffed by the FTA.

By contrast the FHWA is supporting toll buy-in on I-15 in San Diego CA and has given permission for projects on I-394 in Minneapolis MN, I-64 and I-264 in the Norfolk/Tidewater area of VA, and is looking favorably on proposals for studies on I-270, and I-495 in MD, and is supporting the concept on a bunch of HOVs in Phoenix AZ including I-10, AZ-202, I-17, and US-60. SOV buy-in is seen by the FHWA as an important part of its Value Pricing Program, which also involves variable tolls on toll facilities.

A letter from Lee Waddleton, FTA administrator in Region VI (which covers AR, LA, NM, OK and TX) wrote the apparently definitive FTA letter 2/16/99 to Shirley DeLibero the president of the Houston Metro. Pertinent parts are:

“FTA’s mission is to provide federal financial assistance for mass transp facilities and equipment (read: trains and buses), including fixed guideway dedicated solely to the use of buses and HOVs – facilities that mitigate congestion, enhance safety and achieve significant time savings for patrons of buses and HOVs during the morning and evening peak hours for commuting.

“The advantages of timesavings and lessened congestion to the buses and HOVs are reduced whenever a fixed guideway is shared with mixed traffic.

“In addition, by the limits of our statute FTA is prohibited from funding public highways and other types of infrastructure intended for use by SOVs.

“It has always been a priority for the USDOT to ensure that FTA’s funding is used only for those types of fixed guideway that service the exclusive purposes of mass transp at peak hour. Therefore due to statutory limitations FTA cannot allow the operation of SOVs on FTA-funded fixed guideways during peak periods.” (Contact Lee Waddleton FTA 817 978 0550)

COMMENT: Leaving aside the Orwellian misuse of the term ‘mass transportation’ for modes that carry barely 2 percent of passenger trips in the US (automobiles are clearly America’s mass transp), the most egregious mistake in this letter is in the second sentence, which falsely asserts the inevitability of buses and HOVs suffering reduced level of service from any SOV buy-in. SOV buy-in on I-15 in San Diego was premised on maintaining a high level of service for the facility’s buses and HOVs. Two years of operation of SOV buy-in have seen no detriment. And HOV participation has risen and the tolls are paying for improved bus service. Other proposals for SOV buy-in also involve using variable price to meter entry to ensure that there is no overloading of the facility, so that the level of service is maintained for all users. Underutilized HOV lanes do not mitigate congestion, as claimed in the first FTA sentence. They worsen congestion.

There is no proposal in Houston or Denver that FTA be asked to fund any new facilities “intended for use by SOVs,” just that they allow some existing facilities they provided some funds for some years ago, and which have spare capacity, to be used by a controlled number of SOVs paying tolls. It is a bizarre interpretation of the law that FTA cannot allow an existing HOVL to be more fully utilized with SOV buy-in, while the FHWA, another arm of the same USDOT, which funded identical HOVLs is at the same time promoting such toll buy-in and helping fund studies and implementation.

There is nothing in the original conditions under which USDOT funded HOVLs which would suggest different rules should apply on FTA supervised facilities as compared to FHWA facilities. Moreover there is something remarkable about the FTA’s current claim in the letter to Houston Metro that “by the limits of our statute FTA is prohibited from funding... infrastructure intended for use by SOVs.” In 1992 it was the FTA which funded the initial phases of the SOV buy-in project on I-15 in San Diego with a $230k grant. Then the FTA said it was making the grant to help “design alternative congestion pricing mechanisms to authorize and control the use of excess capacity on the I-15 HOV expressway by single opccupant vehicles.” (Lee Hultgren & Kim Kawada “San Diego’s Interstate 15 Value Pricing Project” 3/22/99, p3.)

Apparently it was quite within the law for FTA to sponsor SOV buy-in in 1992 and to help fund it, but now the FTA says it cannot even permit others to pay for, and practice SOV buy-in on any facility FTA has helped to fund. The FTA now claim the right to exercise a veto against SOV buy-in. The letter of the law under which FTA operates has not changed by a single word, but these charlatans interpet the law one way when it suits their political agenda, and then the opposite way when their political agenda has changed. Obviously they are now part of the anti-car (SOV) crusade. Gorish politics and ideology now rule at the FTA. They’re full of BS when they invoke the law.