PUBLIC SUBMISSION | As of: February 16, 2009 Comments Due: August 03, 2007 Late comments are accepted |
Docket: FTA-2006-25737
Major Capital Investment Grants
Comment On: FTA-2006-25737-0001
U.S. DOT/FTA - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Document: FTA-2006-25737-0004
Thomas A. Rubin - Comments
2007 Bywood Drive
Oakland,
CA,
94602-1937
I comment specifically on the proposed rule to allow the use of Federal funding for high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, specifically on the proposed formula for allocation of benefits between transit and non-transit uses on fixed guideways on page 43329 of the August 3, 2007 Federal Register Notice.
The formula that is proposed, a ratio of "expected peak transit vehicle-miles traveled on the fixed guideway" divided by "expected total peak vehicle-miles traveled on the fixed guideway," will, in my opinion, under-allocate the benefits of transit to the project to such an extent that the costs of application and compliance would be so high in relation to fiscal benefits that it would significantly reduce the likelihood of applications for Federal assistance even being filed.
I suggest instead that passenger-miles, vice vehicle-miles, should be used in this ratio.
At the present time, there are only a few HOT lanes actually in operation in the U.S. and I do not have access to the data on transit usage on them. I will, therefore, make use of data on a Busway/high-occupance vehicle lane (HOV), the El Monte Busway/HOV lane located on I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway) between El Monte and the Los Angeles central business district.
This Busway/HOV lane was originally planned and built as an exclusive Busway in the early 1970's, but, during a lengthy transit strike in the late 1970's, it was opened for HOV use. After the strike was ended, it was determined that joint operation as a Busway/HOV lane was feasible and this has since become one of the most successful joint transit/highway projects in the United States.
Using data over the past several decades from Caltrans District 7 (Los Angeles), this facility is extremely heavily utilized. Peak hour, peak direction, working weekdays, approximately 80 transit buses, with an average ridership/bus of approximately 35, use it, along with approximately 1,200 other vehicles, which operate at HOV-3 (minimum of three occupants for a vehicle with at least three seating positions). With an average operating speed of slightly over 55 mph, the "transportation work" (passenger-miles) on the Busway/HOV lane is higher than that of the four general purpose lanes -- combined.
If some simplifying assumptions -- that all vehicles use the entire Busway/HOV lane from end-to-end and that ridership is constant -- that are not exactly correct, but close enough for my current purposes, are used, then let us examine the results of using the FTA proposed "vehicle mile" formula vs. the alternative "passenger mile" formula.
With 80 transit buses and 1,200 other vehicles, the transit portion of the vehicle miles would be 80/(80 + 1,200), or 6.25%, or 1/16th of the use. If the Federal share of the transit portion of the cost was 80%, then the actual Federal funding would be 5.0% of the actual eligible cost. If the Federal share were lower, such as 50%, then the total Federal share of the funding would also be lower.
Keep in mind that the El Monte Busway/HOV lane has one of the highest transit uses of any such facility in the U.S. and that the 5% Federal share from the above calculation is probably far higher than many, very good Busway/HOT lane projects would produce.
Applying for Federal transit funding is an expensive and time-consuming process, even under the proposed "small starts" rules, particularly for an entity that has never previously done so. If the highest likely Federal transit funding share is going to be far under 5% of the total eligible cost, and there are significant costs in applying and in the use of the funds, such as Davis-Bacon compliance, as well as on-going compliance costs, it is very likely that many potential applicants will soon decide that it is not worthwhile to apply for funding under this program.
Now let us examine what would happen if we used passenger-miles as the base. Again, assuming that ridership, and therefore passenger-miles, are constant over the entire Busway/HOV lane, 80 buses with an average of 35 passengers produces 2,800 total transit passengers. 1,200 non-transit vehicles with an average of 3.1 passengers/vehicle produces 3,720. Using riders as a surrogate for passenger-miles, the transit percentage is (2,800)/(2,800 + 3,720) = 43%. At a 80% Federal share, Federal funding would pay for approximately 34% of the total eligible cost; at 50% Federal share, approximately 21%.
I submit that a funding program that can potentially cover one-quarter to one-third of the total cost of the project is far more attractive, and far likely to generate interest and applications, than a program that will pay one-twentieth or less of such costs.
Further, and most important, I submit that using passenger-miles for the allocation is far fairer than using vehicle-miles. The purpose of passenger transportation is to move people, not vehicles, and it is therefore proper to measure benefits in terms of people, not vehicle, statistics, such as passenger-miles.
Moreover, the use of vehicle-miles is an inferior measure of cost of use, both of construction and of on-going operations and maintenance. It is generally accepted that both construction and on-going costs of roadways are highly dependent upon the weight of the vehicles, most commonly expressed in terms of axle weights, and many formulae in this field use exponents of axle weight variables to model significant cost drivers such as roadway maintenance requirements.
The average axle weight of most HOT lane vehicles is likely to be well below 2,500 pounds, with rare examples approaching 5,000 pounds. The California statutory maximum bus axle weight is 20,500 pounds (Vehicle Code 35554) -- and, if the truth be known, loaded two-axle buses generally far exceed 20,500 pounds on the rear axle.
The design of specific HOT lanes will vary, as will the intended users, and there are proposals that appear viable for exclusive truck HOT lanes, but, in general, I believe it is safe to assume that the vast majority of usage of most HOT lanes now contemplated will be passenger cars and other smaller vehicles, such as pickup trucks, vans, and sports utility vehicles. If it is necessary for a HOT lane project to significant increase its design standards and on-going maintenance to be able to operate transit buses on the lanes, it would be unfair to only provide Federal transit funding on the improper assumption that design standards and maintenance costs for bus operation are the same as for far smaller private passenger vehicles. Indeed, the higher cost of design and maintenance for heavier vehicles could even be such that bus usage would be prohibited.
Therefore, if HOT lane builders are to be attracted to allow buses to use them, it is only fair to have a funding allocation formula that is proper, both in terms of benefits and in terms of costs. Because any cost allocation on any particular Busway/HOT lane project would be an expensive, detailed, site-specific study that any general rule or formula would be unlikely to come close to, I specifically do NOT propose determining the Federal funding allocation for transit useage of Busways/HOT lanes based on such costs. It is my belief that a formula that is based on usage, defined in terms of passenger-miles, will be something that is very workable in terms of current levels of transportation demand modeling, but the cost allocation factors discussed above support use of this usage variable, rather than vehicle-miles.
Therefore, in conclusion, I recommend the substitution of passenger-miles for vehicle-miles for purposes of determining the Federal funding share of joint Busway/High-Occupancy Toll projects.
I would be most pleased to respond to any questions, or requests for additional data, you may have.
Tom Rubin
2007 Bywood Drive
Oakland, California 94602-1937
tarubin@earthlink.net
(213) 241-5182