We can no more build our way out of congestion than we can solve a weight problem by buying larger pants. But pressure to address traffic delays by building new roads will not abate until we get smarter about transportation. With 8 out of 10 jobs created in the past 30 years located in suburban areas lacking good transit, walking, and bicycle access, there are no simple solutions. Stopping growth only locks in current unsustainable patterns. New incentives are vital to practical traffic congestion relief.
 

Commuter Choice

Since January 1st, employers who pay for transit or vanpool benefits for employees living or working in Maryland get the state to pick up half the cost of these benefits with a tax credit worth up to $360/year per employee. The Commuter Benefits Act of 2000 (SB244/HB310) would extend this tax credit to non-profit employers and to employers who pay commuters added cash income in lieu of a parking space.

Maryland's new tax credit is by far the largest incentive of its kind anywhere in America, a smart transportation incentive that boosts Smart Growth. It complements new federal Commuter Choice tax reforms passed in 1998 that allow all American workers to pay for transit using pre-tax dollars, to get tax-free transit and vanpool benefits from their employers, and to get cash in lieuof workplace parking. 

But incentives for transit are only part of the solution to the metro region's congestion. While serving many in the Washington/ Baltimore region well, often transit does not go where we need to travel. And the majority of Maryland residents who are dependent on driving for most of their travel are increasingly frustrated by the lack of choices and being stuck in traffic, which forecasts warn will get far worse.
 

HOT Lanes

A promising option for unclogging our roads is High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. These allow solo drivers to pay to use High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, while giving a free ride to carpools and buses. The Maryland Department of Transportation, with support from many environmental and business groups, is studying this strategy for Interstates 495, 95 and 270, the Bay tunnels and bridges, US 50, and MD Rt.210. 

A network of HOT lanes on existing high speed highways could relieve the pressure for big new roads like the Inter-County Connector and Western Bypass. HOV lanes work well for trips downtown, where transit and carpooling are good options. But more and more travel is between one suburb and another, where HOV lanes and transit services often fall short. Recent experience in New Jersey and Virginia shows underused HOV lanes are vulnerable to being converted to general traffic lanes.

HOT lanes should be implemented to bring with them increased travel choices and transportation equity. By funding new bus, ridesharing and transit services, as is done with toll revenue from the I-15 HOT lane in San Diego, the lanes benefit all commuters and will be used efficiently. This approach increases access for low-income transit users to suburban jobs. And middle and higher income commuters, who are most likely to be solo drivers, benefit from reduced road congestion or better service and reduced fares if they choose transit. HOT lane revenues can also be used to maintain and fund roads, placing the largest cost burden on those who use roads the most.

New non-stop electronic fare technology now readily available means HOT lanes wouldn't involve any delay in paying tolls. And HOT lane fee adjustments--higher in rush hour and discounted at other times--keep traffic flowing without wasting scarce road capacity like HOV lanes do. This makes it possible to contemplate future conversion of some existing general purpose lanes to HOT lanes particularly where new capacity is being added to existing roads.

Are low income people be hurt by HOT lanes? Not if the revenues are used appropriately. Studies show that HOT lane users have a similar demographic profile to those using parallel free lanes. A time-stressed working-class mother running late and facing a $1 a minute overtime penalty at their day care center is happy to have the HOT option to beat the traffic and save time when needed. The worker without a car is better off if they get access to expanded employment opportunity in the suburbs thanks to new transit and van services and transit discounts made possible by HOT revenues. And new sprawl-inducing outer beltways are less likely to win political favor if time-stressed travelers have a way to buy relief from growing congestion delays in existing freeway corridors.

Throwing more money into road expansion won't solve our problems. We need new strategies like HOT lanes and wider use of new transit incentives to help us untangle our traffic mess and boost transportation equity. q

Michael Replogle is transportation director for Environmental Defense, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009. www.environmentaldefense.org
 

Michael is right. Building new roads only adds to congestion problems on trunk roads AND on local roads.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Commuter Choice is a good idea.  Write your Delegates and Senator and support SB 244 and HB 310.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The basic idea promoted by EDF is to make more efficient use of existing roads through pricing mechanisms.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The study's Stakeholder Committee does not include any Sierra Club representatives. EDF serves on this Committee alone.

The idea implied here is that a HOT lane on the Beltway would solve the transportation problem for I-270 corridor executives in getting to BWI Airport.  This analysis ignores the stated goal of Doug "Dozer" Duncan to develop the ICC as a new high tech corridor with businesses (and inevitably, housing) strung along it similar to the development of Route 100 in Howard County.  The HOT lane proposal is based, in large part, on the perceived failure of HOV lanes. In Virginia, the I-95 HOV lane carried as many people during rush hour as all the other lanes combined.

The principle equity redress proposed is redirection of HOT fees to transit and other non-auto solutions.  Unless HOT lane fees are legally linked to transit funding, this redirection will be difficult to achieve. There will be strong pressure to build more HOT lanes with the funds.
Michael describes here the class system implicit in the HOT proposal. The poor will use transit. The rich will be able to drive unimpeded.
 
 
 

Presumably, as congestion increases so will HOT lane fees, if the market rules as proposed by EDF. If this happens, HOT lanes will increasingly be a tool for a monied elite, as fee increases put its use out of reach for most working people.
 
 
 
 
 

This example suggests that income challenged people will also benefit from HOT lanes. Occasionally, perhaps. But this is a proposal to benefit the well off -- creating a two tier approach to transportation that has profound equity and land use problems.
 
 
 
 
 

This proposal reinforces current development patterns based on auto access. The Sierra Club believes development must be tied to the construction of mass transit. We need to build the Purple Line instead of the ICC and direct development strictly on the basis of transit access. 

HOT lanes are a very narrow answer to a very broad problem. EDF's proposal ignores the air pollution costs of the automobile. And, by direct implication, this proposal opens up rural areas to country mansion developments for the wealthy by facilitating longer commuting trips. The assault on small dairy farmers described on Pages 8-9 of this issue will open up new rural lands to this kind of development. 

If you would like to respond to Michael Replogle's article or my comments please contact me at 301-779-1000 or email me at cbedford@erols.com  --Chris Bedford