Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 15
Methodology 15 these guidelines seek to make the best set of recommendations for future performance eval- uation program implementation. Given that each congestion pricing facility is unique and that performance evaluation pro- grams must be tailored to varying sets of goals, contexts, and available resources, the 12 project case studies are also provided as an appendix to these guidelines. In this manner, the reader may find that the information contained in a specific case study can augment the guidelines' recom- mendations or serve to better illustrate a particular application in detail. For example, in consid- ering the implementation of a simple HOV-to-HOT conversion along a 3- by 3-lane corridor with one non-barrier-separated HOV lane and two general purpose lanes in each direction, the Washington State Department of Transportation's experience doing just that along SR 167 in southern Kings County may be useful to study in detail--in addition to the recommendations for variably priced managed lanes in Chapter 3. 2.2 State of the Practice and Beyond The current collection of operational congestion priced facilities from which these guidelines draw on highlight two No Two HOT Lanes Are the Same important points. One, the application of congestion pric- Prior to the opening of the Katy Managed Lanes, ing--and thus evaluating and measuring its performance--is staff from the Harris County Toll Road Authority a relatively new concept, but one that is expected to continue (HCTRA) in Houston visited several other operat- growing. The second point, which, despite the expected ing HOT lanes in person to learn more about them increase in operational facilities, will likely remain true, is that and the different ways in which they operate. no two facilities are the same. It follows from this that no two HCTRA staff found these visits extremely helpful facilities have the same performance measurement require- and informative, and also left them with an under- ments. It is with this understanding that the approach to standing that each of the HOT lane facilities oper- these guidelines has been to synthesize what has been used in ating in the United States is unique. Some of the practice and apply that which has been found to provide the most important distinctions include the different best value. types of agencies operating priced managed lanes, variations in back office procedures, as well as 2.2.1 The Expanding Future the presence or lack of other toll facilities in the of Congestion Pricing region. Given these important distinctions, the process of determining how a priced facility will The trend of applying congestion pricing solutions to trans- operate is facility-specific and needs to be driven portation needs in the United States (and abroad) is growing. by local conditions. The HCTRA managed lane With limited resources with which to make improvements team was able to incorporate bits and pieces of and a need to manage increased demand from a growing pop- strategies and lessons learned from several of the ulation seeking greater mobility, congestion pricing is a natu- facilities they visited into the operation of the ral, and many would argue, necessary solution. In addition, to Katy facility, selecting from among what they con- continue to make appropriate justifications for investing in sidered to be the best and most relevant to their congestion pricing solutions, as well as to ensure their local conditions. In particular, the Orange County intended and optimal operation, performance evaluation and Transportation Authority's SR 91 Express Lanes measurement must play a significant role in their application. facility was influential and led HCTRA to decide on The current scope of congestion pricing in the United States fixed variable pricing rather than dynamic pricing. is shown in Table 2-2 alongside expected future projects that HCTRA staff have been pleased with the outcome are in the "pipeline." These pipeline projects are in design or of that decision and stated that their experience construction or have a good chance of moving ahead from from the site visits has encouraged them to opt for their ongoing planning processes. Those that are operational simplicity whenever possible. today have opened within only the last 15 years. Many of the

OCR for page 15
16 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Table 2-2. Operating and pipeline congestion pricing projects in the United States. OPERATING PIPELINE Variably Priced Managed Lanes Variably Priced Managed Lanes Alameda County, CA I-680 Austin Loop 1 Los Angeles I-10 Denver I-25 Baltimore I-95 Los Angeles I-110 Houston I-10 Katy Freeway Bay Area, CA I-580 Orange County, CA I- Houston Northwest Freeway Bay Area, CA I-80 405 Miami I-95 Bay Area, CA U.S. 101 Provo I-15 Minneapolis I-394 Charlotte I-77 San Antonio Loop 1604 Minneapolis I-35W Dallas DFW Connector San Orange County, CA SR 91 Dallas I-30 Tom Landry Bernardino/Riverside San Diego I-15 Dallas I-35 Thornton Counties, CA I-10 Seattle SR 167 Dallas I-35E Stemmons San Salt Lake City I-15 Dallas I-635/LBJ Bernardino/Riverside Dallas NTE (I-820/SH Counties, CA I-15 121) San Denver U.S. 36 Bernardino/Riverside Fort Lauderdale I-595 Counties, CA SR-91 Georgia GA 400 San Diego I-15 Georgia I-75/I-575 San Diego I-5 Georgia I-85 San Diego I-805 Houston area reversible San Diego SR 52 lanes except I-10 Katy San Jose SR 237/I-880 Las Vegas I-15 San Jose SR 85 San Jose U.S. 101 Seattle I-405 St. Paul I-35E Virginia I-395/I-95 Virginia I-495 Capital Beltway Toll Facilities with Variable Pricing Toll Facilities with Variable Pricing Lee County, Florida Bridges Maryland Intercounty Connector New Jersey Turnpike Seattle Alaskan Way Orange County, California San Joaquin Hills Seattle SR-520 (73) and Foothill/Eastern (241, 261, 133) Toll Roads Delaware Route 1 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Bridges and Tunnels Virginia Dulles Greenway Cordon and Area Pricing Cordon and Area Pricing None San Francisco projects in the pipeline can be expected to open in less than half that time, greatly increasing their presence across the country and the number of sponsoring agencies responsible for their imple- mentation. The number of users (and potentially skeptical observers) will also grow, making the need to validate and manage facility operation more pervasive. These guidelines are designed to address that need. 2.2.2 Every Congestion Priced Facility Is Unique The research that underpins these guidelines has shown a predictable result--that no two congestion priced facilities are the same. Numerous factors that influence the decision to imple- ment such a facility contribute to the uniqueness of each: overarching goals, sponsoring agency, regional roadway network configuration, available alternate modes, land use patterns, user population and demographics, experience level with tolling and managed lanes, available

OCR for page 15
Methodology 17 resources--the list goes on. A user of these guidelines will likely be confronted with this situa- tion, seeking guidance and recommendations for a facility's implementation that presents its own unique attributes and challenges. For this reason, the approach taken in these guidelines has been to identify a wide range of recommendations on establishing a performance evaluation program and selecting specific performance measures. The guidelines represent a synthesis of best practice, but at the same time, remain accessible to readers seeking direction on components of a performance monitoring program that may not be the most commonly applied in practice. Ultimately, a user of these guidelines may pick and choose among the recommendations as appropriate, based on applicable context.