National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Methodology
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13648.
×
Page 65

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

This chapter provides detailed recommendations and key considerations on initiating per- formance evaluation programs and selecting specific performance measures for congestion pric- ing projects. Section 3.1 discusses important considerations common to the three forms of con- gestion pricing when establishing a performance evaluation program. These include • Issues of coordination and timing (such as who will perform the data collection and when as well as what are the available resources to do so) • Confirming goals set for a facility and expected service standards • Identifying measures for evaluating and managing project performance • Performance measures used in practice Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 are devoted to performance measurement and the selection of per- formance measures for the three forms of congestion pricing: variably priced managed lanes, toll facilities with variable pricing, and cordon or area pricing, respectively. Each of these sections focuses on their distinguishing characteristics and presents detailed recommendations on select- ing the most relevant, cost-effective measures based on goals, identified constraints, and other factors—organized by eight evaluation areas. 3.1 Initiating Performance Measurement Programs 3.1.1 Coordination and Timing Once the decision has been made to move forward with implementation of a congestion pric- ing project, project sponsors should also formulate plans to evaluate and measure the performance of the project. These plans should involve input from a multidisciplinary team of public-sector technical experts responsible for such areas as project outreach, traffic engineering, transit, plan- ning and environment, and environmental justice—together with other stakeholder agencies involved in supporting the project. Stakeholder agencies would depend on local institutional structures but could likely include the local transit authority, state or local law enforcement, and municipal governments. Once the membership of the performance monitoring team has been established, it should convene and discuss performance monitoring needs for the project, with the expectation that different agencies and technical disciplines are likely to have their own unique needs and inter- ests in terms of performance goals and measures. The discussion should identify the universe of issues task members are interested in tracking and rationalize them with the overall goals estab- lished for the congestion pricing project and the funds available to support the performance monitoring program. The discussion should also focus on existing data including surveys, counts, and automated reports that could be used to establish baseline conditions and provide a good precedent for ongoing performance monitoring. 18 C H A P T E R 3 Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

As different measures are discussed, the team should consider the following issues: • How is the measure collected—with real-time detection equipment, regular counts or surveys, or one-time surveys? • Is the data already collected, or would a new effort be needed to do so? • Which agency is best placed to collect the data? • What is the cost of collecting the data? • Should the data be collected internally or by an outside vendor or contractor? • What is the benefit of having the data? • How would the data be used? • What level of resources is available to support collecting the data? • Are cooperating agencies able to provide data within their existing budgets or would they require additional funding to be able to do so? • Will construction activities or other externalities be likely to skew or otherwise influence the data collected during the baseline period, and, if so, how should this be reconciled? By considering these issues, the team will develop an understanding of which potential perfor- mance measures are “have-to-have” items that will deliver essential information for the man- agement and validation of the congestion pricing facility and which of them are “nice-to-have” items that do not necessarily provide the same level of utility. If new information will be needed, it should be collected in the most efficient manner possible. Responsibility for any data that could be gathered electronically should be delegated to the system operator responsible for toll collec- tion or captured by existing ITS installations and included in automated reports. Responsibility for manual counts and surveys should be kept in house if the sponsoring agency has the capability and staff availability to collect the information. Otherwise it is normally more efficient to out- source more specialized data collection needs such as stated preference surveys or aerial photo- graphy to private vendors or firms specializing in those areas. The performance monitoring team’s deliberations should then be summarized by a smaller subset of its members or a consultant into a Draft Performance Evaluation Plan, which could be reviewed and approved by the larger group. The draft plan could also be circulated to other agen- cies or vetted through the project’s ongoing public consultation efforts to obtain input and buy-in from as large a cross section of the local community as possible. When completed, the plan could be posted to the project website in order to enhance transparency and awareness of the perfor- mance monitoring efforts. As discussed in Chapter 1, baseline data collection should extend for one full year prior to the opening of the congestion pricing facility. Having a full 12 months of traffic data and other information allows the sponsor to document normal seasonal trends, as well as the effects of external events such as a large, prolonged snowfall, a spike in the price of gasoline, or changes in transit fares or service. It should also be recognized that the construction of the pricing facility is likely to pose an externality in and of itself, with the potential to degrade travel conditions and divert traffic to other corridors. If this is the case, then the baseline data may need to include historic traffic data prior to construction or possibly involve collecting similar information in a control corridor elsewhere in the region. Accordingly, planning for performance monitoring must be completed far enough in advance of the 12-month baseline period to be able to procure and install any detection equipment that may be required. Similarly, it is also likely that one-time attitudinal surveys will be completed prior to the activation of the congestion pricing project. Planning for these efforts must also be completed far enough in advance to undertake them during the baseline period. While schedul- ing specifics will differ from project to project, it would be best for project sponsors to complete their performance monitoring plans 2 years prior to the opening of the project. This would allow Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 19

a full 12 months to prepare for the beginning of monitoring activities during the 12-month base- line period prior to the project’s opening. 3.1.2 Goal Confirmation and Identification of Service Standards As described above, one of the performance monitoring team’s first activities should be to confirm the goals established for the congestion pricing project. Goal confirmation could also involve revisiting particular needs or concerns that may have arisen from the public consulta- tion process. Primary project goals for congestion pricing projects are likely to include congestion reduction and/or revenue generation. Other likely goals may include system utilization targets, strengthening transit service, and maintaining or improving safety. In certain cases, goals for congestion pricing projects may also extend to the environment, local economic conditions, and even land use. As they summarize and confirm the project goals, the performance monitoring team should recognize that different stakeholder groups are likely to be interested in different goals. As such, the group should seek to agree on a broad set of goals that will resonate with the widest possible constituency. At the same time, the performance monitoring team should also identify a comprehensive set of service standards established for the project. These will include system performance require- ments established for installation of ETC equipment and for a system operator, if chosen to run them. These requirements would be identified in the procurement documents prepared for these functions. Other service standards would involve standard maintenance activities (such as snow removal, sweeping, or guardrail repair) and would likely be established by the maintenance or operations division of the agency sponsoring the project. Still others would likely involve incident management, which normally falls under the purview of the local police or state highway patrol. The team, or a smaller subset thereof, should identify the various performance standards that have been identified for all relevant aspects of the congestion pricing project’s operation, together with existing protocols for tracking them. It should then identify which of those standards should be included in the performance monitoring program for the congestion pricing project, which agency would be best placed to monitor them, and whether new procedures would be required to do so. 3.1.3 Identifying Performance Measures and Their Use Once the performance monitoring team has identified project goals and areas with perfor- mance specifications, it should proceed with the identification of individual performance metrics to be used in the performance monitoring plan. The optimal set of metrics will enable the proj- ect sponsor to have a clear understanding of how well the congestion pricing project is perform- ing and to what extent it is meeting its various goals and standards without being overly costly or requiring an inordinate amount of staff or consultant time to collect. The performance monitoring team should consider each project goal individually and then identify the different performance measures that would be useful in quantifying the extent to which it is being met. As they do so, the team should identify how the data for each metric would be collected, the frequency of collection, the ease of collection, and overall cost. They should also determine whether or not the data is already collected or if it duplicates any new information that will be collected through the monitoring program. If the data is not duplicative, then the team should assess the costs of collecting the metric against the overall utility of having the infor- mation. In order to make the most effective decisions, the team should review all candidate metrics associated with a given goal concurrently to identify the optimal subset of measures that will meet its needs. Project sponsors should track the performance of a large enough comple- ment of metrics to have a full understanding of the overall performance of their priced facilities. This is particularly helpful if certain measures indicate notably different performance trends. 20 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

Sponsors also will need to be intelligent about the conclusions they draw from their monitoring data and look into any changes in performance that the data reveals. The overall scale of the performance monitoring program should also be commensurate with the scale of the pricing application it is tracking. Individual factors influencing the performance monitoring needs for the three forms of congestion pricing are discussed in later sections of this chapter. For example, performance measurement for cordon and area pricing applications should be done at a regional level. This is accomplished by monitoring conditions at strategic locations and then extrapolating the findings to the regional level. The influence that pricing on individual lanes or facilities has at the regional level will depend on the size of the region, the scope and scale of the regional highway network, and the propor- tion of it that is actually priced. As regions move from implementing individual priced facilities to developing regional networks of priced lanes—as is envisioned in the Bay Area, San Diego, Minneapolis, Dallas, and Atlanta—there will be an increasing need to monitor the performance of these systems at a regional level. It will be many years before such regional systems are in place, and performance monitoring and evaluation for regional pricing systems will likely warrant addi- tional research in the future. 3.1.4 Social Equity and Congestion Pricing The use of congestion pricing often raises concerns regarding effects on different elements of society, particularly low-income individuals and other marginal groups. Equity is a broad topic subject to many interpretations. Economists often group people based on income levels or where they live and work, while urban planners often use broader categories such as age, disability, gen- der, or language abilities to identify populations that may be disadvantaged in some way by trans- portation facilities and services.1 Equity analysis seeks to address how facilities affect marginal groups. Rather than involving unique performance metrics, it focuses on how outcomes among marginal populations compare to other user groups and the public at large across a standard set of measures including utiliza- tion, acceptance, affordability, and overall satisfaction. The findings of equity analyses depend on how equity is measured, the way in which user groups are defined, the specifics of different locations, and to what congestion pricing is compared.2 Priced managed lanes are likely to generate fewer equity concerns compared to other pricing forms since they provide drivers with a new priced travel option without taking away the free parallel lanes; they may also involve transit improvements. With respect to toll facilities with variable pricing or the use of cordon or area pricing, equity impacts largely will be driven by where lower income people live and work and the extent to which people have no choice but to drive on priced routes or are forced to forgo certain trips because they are too expensive. In all cases, the differences in the direct benefits and costs between income groups are fairly small. Regardless of one’s economic status, the time saved by using a priced facility will be the same. However, while the absolute cost of using the facility does not change by income, the rel- ative cost compared to an individual’s budget does vary widely. Therefore, when considering the issues of equity, it is important to monitor how different groups benefit from the use of the revenues, rather than just the use of the facility. Whether any discounts or exemptions are avail- able for target populations should also be considered. When revenues are used to support new or enhanced services that benefit target populations, pricing can be found to be progressive. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 21 1Liisa Ecola and Thomas Light; Equity and Congestion Pricing: A Review of the Evidence, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA: 2009, pp 8–9. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html 2Ibid, pp 11–12.

However, if regions use the revenues in ways that benefit all individuals equally, such a policy could be considered regressive. Revenue use actions likely to have positive equity impacts could include • Increased transit service – New transit routes serving low-income neighborhoods – Additional platform hours dedicated to existing runs serving low-income neighborhoods – Additional seats on existing transit runs serving low-income neighborhoods • Reduced fares on selected transit routes • Rebates or credits for trips made by members of target groups • New or improved security at existing park-and-ride lots • Additional spaces at existing park-and-ride lots • New park-and-ride lots Equity assessments for pricing projects generally begin during the planning phase with the identification of populations with potential equity concerns. This is usually done through con- sultation with local community boards and neighborhood groups as part of the public outreach process. Target populations could include low-income residents, residents of specific geographic areas or neighborhoods, transit riders on given services, or possibly speakers of certain languages. Once the target populations have been identified, potential impacts are vetted through dis- cussions with local planners and community and advocacy groups, together with possible strate- gies for mitigating them. Ultimately these strategies—which are likely to be combinations of the actions in the bulleted list above—are incorporated as part of the pricing project and assessed in the environmental approval process. Performance monitoring efforts for congestion pricing projects should be designed to track equity impacts and the efficacy of the programs developed to mitigate them. This is accomplished by distinguishing disadvantaged populations from other travelers and then comparing their overall utilization and satisfaction rates to users at large. This can be accomplished in different ways ranging from tracking trip and travel behavior of transponder account holders residing in target zip codes or those who self identify as being a member of a target group. Surveys are normally designed to capture income information and other demographic and socioeconomic data that can be used to identify respondents from target groups, thereby facilitating compara- tive analysis. Additionally, follow-on meetings or focus groups with members of target popula- tions including residents of given neighborhoods, members of community groups, transit rid- ers, and people enrolled in project-related credit or rebate programs may be held, enabling project sponsors to gain additional feedback from these groups and measurement of the overall performance of any equity mitigation programs. Ideally this information can be used to promote equitable outcomes in measurable terms and garner support for congestion pricing from the public and elected officials.3 3.1.5 Performance Measures Identified in Practice The following sections of Chapter 3 present tailored analyses of the particular performance measures identified by the research supporting these guidelines. Section 3.2 examines perfor- mance measurement for variably priced managed lanes, Section 3.3 looks at toll facilities with variable pricing, and Section 3.4 evaluates cordon and area pricing. The full set of performance measures identified among the supporting research’s 12 project case studies and used in these analyses is shown in Table 3-1, organized by evaluation area. Evaluation areas represent a logical 22 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 3Ibid, p. 33.

Evaluation Area Speed & Travel Time LOS Speeds/ average speed Speed differential (GP vs. HOT lanes) Travel times Travel time savings Cost of delay/ VOT Volume Vehicle volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) Person volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) Tolled trips/ untolled trips VMT/VKT VMT/ VKT Congestion Delay/ wait times Congestion coefficient Queue length Mode Share Mode share (SOV, HOV, transit) Occupancy Avg. vehicle occupancy (auto) Bike/Ped Bike/ped traffic counts Parking Park-n-ride activity (lot counts) Off-street parking activity (counts/occupancy) On-street parking activity (counts/occupancy) Cost of parking/parking revenue # of resident permits/permit cost Awareness Of the facility/general/how much? Specific features Toll adjustments Future plans Acceptance General/fairness/equity Specific questions Satisfaction General/perceived value/how well? Traffic conditions/ reliability Perceived time savings Signage Perceived safety Agency performance/ customer service Enforcement Effectiveness Congestion reduction Social Impacts Specific activities/populations Media Coverage No.of articles/ reports (positive or negative) Volume/success Transaction Method Marketing Transponder/video/by-mail/cash Accounts Total, open/closed No.of transponders issued User Characteristics Vehicle classification Vehicle make Vehicle registrations (HOV, vanpool, hybrid) Home zip code Demographics/ socioeconomics Trip Characteristics Frequency of use Time of day/ departure time O-D/ travelshed determination Toll spending/price paid (self-reported) Trip length Trip purpose Facility Users Traffic Performance Public Perception Performance Measures Violations/ revenue Table 3-1. Congestion pricing performance measures identified in practice. (continued on next page)

24 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Evaluation Area Finance Total transactions Revenue (toll/ charge) Average toll/ highest toll Revenue (fee) O&M Cost Enforcement Total traffic stops/ responses Violations/citations/fines Safety Collisions/ accidents Speed differential Customer Service Inquiry activity (call, email) Performance (quantitative measures) System Function Incidents Facility availability Equipment availability Mean time to respond/ repair Air Quality NAAQS criteria pollutants/ VOCs GHG/ CO2 Noise Noise levels Performance Travel time/on-time/excess wait Average speed Occupancy Ridership/ boardings Average vehicle occupancy Finance Farebox revenue O&M Cost Service Quality/satisfaction/reliability General Gross regional product/ economic indices Benefit-cost analysis Business Impacts General performance/openings/closings Specific sectors/services/populations Business costs and prices Retail traffic & sales Tourists/ visitors Property Residential sales/rentals/values Commercial sales/rentals/values Residential Housing decisions Commercial Business locations Performance Measures System Operations Environment Transit Economics Land Use Incident response time/ duration Table 3-1. (Continued). means of organizing the vast gamut of measures found among operating facilities. They relate directly to goals established for a particular facility—that is goals can be framed within the con- text of an evaluation area. Whenever possible, these assessments also identify which measures are used frequently. Although it is possible to identify trends in some cases, each congestion pricing project is unique and is advanced to address a unique set of goals. Moreover, local concerns, legislative requirements, institutional relationships, and performance monitoring precedents also vary from location to location and project to project. These unique dynamics are the driving force that will deter- mine which particular performance metrics are used on different projects. So rather than pre- scribing particular metrics for particular situations, these guidelines provide a framework for

project sponsors to identify which set of performance mea- sures are likely to meet their particular needs. 3.2 Performance Measurement for Variably Priced Managed Lanes As described earlier, performance measurement for variably priced managed lanes is undertaken for two primary purposes. The first is to monitor traffic operations on the managed lanes and confirm that traffic service, speeds, and reliability meet the standards established for the facility and, if they do not, to make adjustments to toll rates and other operational policies such as access treatments or vehicle occupancy rates so that they do. This process takes place in real time with dynamically- priced HOT lanes where travel conditions are monitored on an ongoing basis and toll rates adjusted up or down in intervals as frequent as every 5 minutes. With HOT lanes using fixed vari- able pricing, traffic performance data is most often collected electronically using in-road sensors and is reviewed on a regu- lar basis, in some cases as often as every 3 months. The second purpose is more complex. It involves document- ing the performance of priced managed lanes to the public at large and thereby validating the use of congestion pricing. This is a process that involves interacting with various stakeholder groups, which will have their own particular areas of interest and concern. Their interests will also be influenced by whether or not the project involved • The conversion of an existing HOV lane to HOT operation • The expansion of an existing HOT lane facility • The construction of new highway capacity used as a priced managed lane • The implementation of a new priced managed lane that involves a combination of new con- struction and the conversion of existing HOV or general-purpose lanes There are many different audiences with an interest in the performance of variably price man- aged lanes. These are likely to include the following groups: • HOV motorists, transit riders, and drivers of other qualified vehicles who used the managed lane prior to its conversion to HOT operation • SOV motorists who pay to use the managed lanes • The agency sponsoring the managed lane projects and other transportation agencies and organizations • Transit agencies providing service on the managed lanes • Safety and law enforcement agencies providing these services on the managed lane facility • State legislatures and other local government bodies who may have approved the use of man- aged lanes and who may be the recipients of legally mandated reports documenting the performance of the facility • Local governments • Community boards and neighborhood groups • The media • Any number of local interest groups, including chambers of commerce, trucking organiza- tions, environmental organizations, and the like Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 25 Performance Monitoring and the Management of Congestion Pricing Facilities The metrics included in these Guidelines are used for two primary purposes: monitoring and man- aging the performance of congestion pricing projects. When a metric is used in a management capacity, the performance of the project is assessed against performance standards and if it is found that the facility is not achieving desired standards, then management tools such as toll rates, vehicle occupancy requirements, and access locations are modified in order for the project to meet the desired performance levels. It should be noted that a relatively small subset of perform- ance metrics identified among the 12 case study projects assessed for this study are used in this way. Among variably priced managed lanes, 22 out of 62 identified metrics are used to manage oper- ations; for toll facilities with variable pricing, the share was 4 out of 17 metrics; and for cordon and area pricing projects, 3 out of 55 identified met- rics were used directly for operations.

Although there is some local variation, the general concerns and interests of these different groups are relatively consistent. Chapter 4 of these guidelines provides additional information on outreach issues associated with the use of variable pricing. Performance monitoring programs for variably priced managed lane projects need to encom- pass all the metrics needed to operate these facilities within prescribed standards, as well as a col- lection of other measures that together will enable project sponsors to document and validate the performance of the facility. There is no single approach that can be prescribed for accom- plishing the latter. With each project this should involve a thoughtful review and balancing of the resources available for performance monitoring together with the goals established for the project and the different concerns among the stakeholder groups with whom the project spon- sors must interact. The remainder of Section 3.2 synthesizes the existing experience in formulating performance monitoring programs for seven operating variably priced managed lane projects from around the country based on interviews and case studies prepared as part of NCHRP Project 08-75. Through this process, the research identifies those particular performance measures widely found to be effective in meeting the two main requirements for monitoring the performance of variably priced managed lane facilities and distinguishing them from other measures that have been used but not necessarily found to offer the same value. However, before embarking on that discussion Section 3.2.1 identifies a number of distinguishing characteristics that have been found to influence performance monitoring programs for variably priced managed lanes. 3.2.1 Distinguishing Characteristics of Variably Priced Managed Lane Projects In addition to the distinctions described above, various factors influence performance moni- toring needs for managed lane projects. Configuration The physical configuration of the nation’s priced managed lane projects varies considerably from those with single points of access and egress and full barrier separation, to those without barrier separation and still others with lengths up to 20 miles, multiple lanes, dedicated park- and-ride facilities, multiple points of access and egress, and even movable barriers allowing the operators to provide an additional travel lane in the predominant peak flow direction. The level of complexity of the configuration of priced managed lane projects can be expected to be reflected in performance monitoring programs for them. This is true both in understanding traffic perfor- mance, as well as overall utilization, revenue generation, and customer satisfaction. Presence of Other Toll Facilities The presence of other toll facilities or the lack thereof is a fundamental factor influencing the development of variably priced managed lane projects and, to a lesser degree, performance mon- itoring programs for them. If a region has other toll facilities, interoperability of the ETC sys- tems will be a high priority and rather than reinventing the wheel it is more likely than not that the new managed lane facility will use the same back office accounting system as the existing facility. This can be expected to have an influence on utilization, as many potential customers will already have established ETC accounts. Outreach issues in regions with a culture of tolling are likely to be different than in those where tolling and variable price are new. However, in certain circumstances the presence of other toll facilities could introduce new concerns such as the distribution of new transponders in travelsheds where motorists are likely to use the new managed lane facility or possible modifications that will be required, as in 26 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

Los Angeles where HOV motorists will need to obtain a new ETC tag outfitted with a toggle switch that will allow them to declare themselves as either an HOV or SOV. To the extent that any of these potential issues poses a major concern, performance monitoring programs may need to track them. Sponsoring Agency The performance monitoring programs established for variably priced managed lane projects can be expected to be developed based on the existing monitoring practices of the agencies that implement them. However, these projects are sponsored by various sponsoring agencies around the United States, including DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and toll authorities. Although each of these types of agencies can be expected to have experience in performance monitoring, their particular areas of expertise in this area can be expected to vary greatly. For example DOTs responsible for operating highways are likely to have experience with monitoring highway opera- tions, but not necessarily with toll collection or transit performance. Transit operators cannot be expected to have experience in monitoring highway safety. Performance monitoring pro- grams for priced managed lane projects extend across multiple disciplines and often require inputs and cooperation with other local transportation agencies. These issues will have an influence on the performance monitoring programs put in place and should be considered early on when plans for implementing monitoring programs are first being formulated. Level of Public Interest The overall level of public interest in priced managed lane projects varies from region to region. Two of the primary factors driving the level of public interest are whether or not congestion pric- ing is new to the region and the level of utilization of existing managed lanes when HOV to HOT conversions are involved. If pricing and managed lanes are new to a region, this can be expected to ratchet up the level of public interest in the project. Similarly, if existing HOV facilities are already highly used, motorists and transit riders using those facilities will be concerned about possible impacts to travel conditions or occupancy requirements enabling motorists to use them at no cost. Conversely, if HOV lanes slated for HOT conversion are perceived as being under- used, the level of public interest can be expected to be less intense. The same dynamic holds true when new priced lanes are added in a region that already has operating ETL or HOT lanes, or in instances where existing managed lane facilities are widened or extended. It is a fair rule of thumb that the level of public concern over the implementation of variably priced lanes should be reflected in performance monitoring programs for these facilities. In instances where there is a high level of public interest in pricing, project sponsors should anticipate developing more com- prehensive monitoring programs in order to generate an adequate amount of information at a level of detail that will satisfy the public. 3.2.2 Selection of Performance Measures for Variably Priced Managed Lanes This section provides specific factors for consideration, summaries of experience, and recom- mendations on the selection of performance measures for variably priced managed lanes. The section’s organization follows the order of the eight areas of evaluation identified among the oper- ational congestion pricing projects examined as part of the NCHRP Project 08-75 research that produced these Guidelines. These evaluation areas and the full set of identified performance measures were introduced in Table 3-1 in Section 3.1.5. It is important to remember that these evaluation areas are tied directly to the goals of a proj- ect. Specific project goals can be formulated and measured by framing them within the context of the evaluation areas. In setting a specific goal of congestion reduction (for example), “traffic Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 27

performance” will necessarily be evaluated. Within this evaluation area, 20 distinct performance measures have been identified in practice (although not all offer equal value and some are more significant than others). The number of distinct performance measures captured within each evaluation area is shown in Table 3-2. The table also indicates which of these measures are considered “more common” and “less common” among operational facilities. A total of seven operating facilities comprise those researched for these guidelines. The full spectrum of the most common performance measures ranked by frequency of use in practice is shown in Table 3-3. In many cases, these measures represent the “have-to-haves” for facility sponsors and operators in formulating a performance evaluation program. Subsets of this table are provided for each evaluation area in the sections that follow. Table 3-3 and its subsets also identify whether the measures are generally applied in an oper- ations or validation capacity and whether they play a key (primary) or secondary role in a typi- cal performance evaluation program. Some performance measures that validate a project may also be used to make operational facility changes, and vice versa; operational measures may also help validate the project. Those marked as operations are the critical measures used daily to maintain the proper function of a facility (such as an input to a toll policy algorithm), while val- idation measures, which may also be used operationally, are applied on a less immediate basis (such as increasing the number of enforcement patrols or cameras based on violation data). Table 3-3 and its following subsets by evaluation area are based on a relatively small (but grow- ing) sample size—seven priced managed lane projects as of the development of these guidelines. Other performance measures could be significant or necessary to collect based on the goals set for a particular facility that were either not captured by the research for this project or remain relatively “new” among the projects surveyed and not widely applied to date. Also, it may not always be necessary to follow what has been done by others just because it has been done. Where appropriate in the discussion that follows, these considerations will be made. Also in many cases, issues discussed for each evaluation area can be applicable to those performance measures not identified. Traffic Performance Traffic performance describes the fundamental purpose of a roadway: its ability to provide mobility to people and goods. Traffic performance is the most important of the eight areas of evaluation and measured through various traffic engineering measures answering questions per- taining to the facility about how much, how many, how fast, and by what mode. Representative Traffic Performance Goals. Variably priced managed lane goals that involve measures of traffic performance are the most common among all possible goals set for these facilities. Achieving congestion reduction is one prominent example. This goal, in turn though, may be further characterized on a more measurable basis or within a context that better resonates 28 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Total Measures Identified Most Common Measures (3+ out of 7 Facilities) Less Common Measures (3+ out of 7 Facilities) Traffic Performance 20 8 6 Public Perception 15 5 7 Facility Users 14 5 9 System Operations 15 13 2 Environment 3 0 1 Transit 7 2 4 Economics 9 0 0 Land Use 2 0 0 Table 3-2. Total performance measures by evaluation area.

with facility users or those interested in improved performance. To that end, the goal of achiev- ing congestion reduction could more specifically be stated as achieving a reduction in delay or increasing person-volume throughput. More generally, traffic congestion reduction goals often imply improved system efficiency or reliability. However, the research for this project has shown that these “goals” are often subjective, hard-to-define, and depend on location-specific contexts. For example, one agency or region may define improved reliability simply as maintaining aver- age speeds above 50 miles per hour, while another may characterize improved reliability as the ability to achieve a certain journey time 95 or more percent of the time. What Are the Most Frequently Applied Traffic Performance Measures? Measures of traf- fic, as indicated in Table 3-3, include vehicle and person volumes, speeds and travel times, mode share and vehicle occupancies, and vehicle miles traveled. Indicators of congestion include delay, queue lengths, and specially developed coefficients comparing specific metrics during congested and uncongested conditions. Other measures that incorporate traffic include bicycle and pedes- trian measures and parking, although these are not commonly applied to variably priced man- aged lane facilities. Those measures deemed only the most broadly and beneficially applicable Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 29 Evaluation Area Performance Measures Total No. ofMeasures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Volume Vehicle volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) 7 5 3 5 2 System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations System Operations Finance Revenue (toll/ charge) 6 3 4 5 1 Enforcement Violations/citations/fines 6 1 5 6 Speed & Travel Time Speeds/ average speed 5 5 3 5 Mode Share Mode share (SOV, HOV, transit) 5 1 5 1 4 Finance Average toll/ highest toll 5 4 3 4 1 Finance O&M Cost 5 1 3 2 3 Speed & Travel Time LOS 4 3 1 4 Speed & Travel Time Travel times 4 1 3 1 3 Public Perception Public Perception Public Perception Public Perception Public Perception Satisfaction General/perceived value/how well? 4 4 4 Facility Users User Characteristics Home zip code 4 1 2 1 2 Facility Users Trip Characteristics Frequency of use 4 1 4 1 3 Facility Users Facility Users Facility Users Trip Characteristics O-D/ travelshed determination 4 3 4 Finance Total transactions 4 2 2 1 3 Safety Collisions/ accidents 4 4 4 Safety Incident response time/ duration 4 4 4 Customer Service Inquiry activity (call, email) 4 4 4 System Function Equipment availability 4 4 4 Traffic Performance Speed & Travel Time Travel time savings 3 3 3 Traffic Performance Volume Tolled trips/ untolled trips 3 2 3 Traffic Performance Parking Park-n-ride activity (lot counts) 3 2 2 Awareness Of the facility/general/how much? 3 3 3 Satisfaction Traffic conditions/ reliability 3 3 3 Satisfaction Perceived time savings 3 3 3 Satisfaction Perceived safety 3 3 3 Accounts No. of transponders issued 3 2 1 1 User Characteristics Demographics/ socioeconomics 3 3 3 Finance Revenue (fee) 3 1 2 1 2 Enforcement Total traffic stops/ responses 3 2 3 System Function Incidents 3 3 3 System Function Mean time to respond/ repair 3 3 3 Transit Performance Travel time/on-time/excess wait 3 1 2 1 2 Transit Occupancy Ridership/ boardings 3 3 3 Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Note: Purpose columns can add to more than the number of facilities using a particular measure if the measure is used in both an operations and validation capacity. Table 3-3. Performance measures in practice—variably priced managed lanes (3+ out of 7 facilities examined).

are discussed here—other measures may offer equal or better value, depending on the context in which they are applied. Research for these guidelines has shown that key performance measures of traffic for variably priced managed lanes include vehicle volumes and speeds (see Table 3-4). LOS—a prescribed traffic engineering metric characterizing the performance relationship between volume and speed—also factors frequently among key performance measures, but is, itself, derived from knowing volumes and speeds. The following two sections explain how these measures are used in (1) ongoing operations of the priced facility and (2) making the facility’s case to the public and other interested parties. Operations: Using Traffic Performance Measures in the Daily Operation of Variably Priced Managed Lanes. A relatively small subset of measures is used to ensure that a facility is operat- ing as intended, and, if it is not, to make decisions about appropriate changes. From the perspective of facility operation, measures of vol- ume and/or speed are must-haves; without them, quantifying operational performance is very difficult. Knowing speeds also implies calculation of travel times, given the distance traveled between two points of measurement. These basic measures are critical to (1) measuring goal success tied to congestion reduction and (2) the ability to formulate a toll rate policy. As experience shows, validating and communicating the out- comes of the pricing project’s implementation often depend on the ability to quantify the volume or speed of traffic. Indeed, across a wide range of goals—not just those tied to congestion reduction—without an understanding of the number of vehi- cles using a facility and the speeds at which they are able to travel, it is not possible to fully comprehend the context of other possible facility goals, such as improvements in safety, effects on the environment, or impacts to transit service. Volumes and speeds (as well as travel times and LOS) can be used as thresholds for making toll rate adjustments or other operational changes—consequently, such factors can act as direct input into the formulation of a toll rate policy. Hourly or peak-period traffic volumes would be appropriate measures for determining when a toll rate adjustment is necessary by establishing threshold parameters above which (or below which) a price increase (or decrease) is warranted. Adjustments dictated by these measures could apply to a dynamic toll schedule, with changes as frequent as every few minutes, or to a fixed schedule, where adjustments may be reviewed 30 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Example: Traffic Volumes The 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, Califor- nia, use volumes to trigger toll rate adjustments. If hourly volumes across both lanes of travel in one direction on any one particular day exceed 3,200 vehicles, then a toll increase is applied. Adjustments are made on a quarterly basis to the fixed toll schedule and held constant for at least 6 months. 1 Performance Measures Total No. ofMeasures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary Vehicle volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) 7 5 25 5 1 4 1 Speeds/ average speed 5 5 Mode share (SOV, HOV, transit) 5 4 LOS 4 3 Travel times 4 1 3 Travel time savings 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 Tolled trips/ untolled trips 3 Park-n-ride activity (lot counts) 3 Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Table 3-4. Most frequently applied performance measures—traffic performance.

with only occasional frequency, such as on a quarterly basis. Similarly, average speed thresholds can dictate a toll rate adjust- ment and can be tied to a particular class of vehicle such as HOV or transit. Volume and speed data can be readily collected on a con- tinuous, real-time basis through ETC transaction equipment, including transponder readers positioned at toll booths or mounted on overhead gantries, as well as with cameras oper- ated with vehicle identification or point speed detection soft- ware. Once up and running, the cost to operate the system is marginal and often contracted out to a toll operator obligated to maintain the equipment, collect data, and produce reports, in conjunction with managing the collection of the toll itself. Complications arise, however, if not all vehicles are required to use a transponder, as with HOV users on some facilities. In this case, conventional loop detectors can be used. Going one step further, to make comparisons with adjacent general-purpose lane conditions, loop detec- tors would be required equipment on those lanes as well. To obtain a fully comparable set of volume or speed data between priced and general-purpose lanes, it may be necessary to retrofit additional loop detectors in the general-purpose lanes to obtain the necessary coverage and ensure no gaps occur in the data. The costs of adding this equipment must be weighed against the importance of being able to make a one-to-one comparison of volumes and speeds across all lanes, or calculating additional metrics such as speed differential between the sets of lanes. Sev- eral operators of existing variably priced managed lane facilities noted that this information was something they wished they had had when evaluating their performance evaluation programs. A stronger case for the benefit of priced lanes can be made when a throughput or speed compari- son across both a corridor’s priced and unpriced lanes is available. Validation: Using Traffic Performance Measures to Vali- date Variably Priced Managed Lanes. As important as using traffic performance measures is for facility operations, traffic performance measures can also be powerful means to validate a project. Table 3-3 indicates that all commonly applied per- formance measures used in practice can help communicate the success and benefits of a priced project’s implementation. In addition to those measures discussed above in an opera- tions capacity, mode share is often used in a validation role. Mode share denotes how many of each vehicle type is using the facility—SOV, HOV2, HOV3, transit vehicle, etc. Given the common focus on maintaining unaffected service to HOV users when converting HOV lanes to HOT operation, it is important to know the share of qualified HOV users (HOV2+ or HOV3+) relative to paying users (SOV or HOV2 in the case of an HOV3+ requirement). Observers will be interested in this information to help understand the effect of allowing paying customers on the facility; for example, what share do paying customers represent?, and did HOV usage decline with the addition of HOT operation? Mode share can be challenging to measure in the absence of full coverage ETC transponder data that identifies vehicle occupancy. Means to overcome this Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 31 Example: Travel Times Along the 7-mile I-25 Express Lanes in Denver, maintaining on-time journey by express buses is critical. Onboard transponders allow for the monitoring of bus travel times along the priced corridor and consequently average speeds. A toll increase is warranted to the fixed schedule when average speeds fall below 45 mph to reduce the number of paying SOV users. Example: Travel Times and Travel Time Savings WSDOT makes the case for and quantifies improved reliability on the SR 167 HOT Lanes in southern Kings County, Washington, by compar- ing travel times across the corridor’s lanes. Along the general-purpose lanes, the average weekday northbound peak-hour travel time was 19 min- utes, with a 95th percentile travel time of 26 min- utes; and the average southbound peak-hour travel time was 12 minutes, with a 95th per- centile travel time of 19 minutes. Northbound, the length of the route is 11 miles, southbound, 9 miles. The average travel-time savings by using the HOT lanes was 8 minutes northbound (A.M. peak) and 4 minutes southbound (P.M. peak). These travel-time savings are genuinely notice- able along those distances and the results have resonated with facility users.

obstacle include requiring a registration process for HOV users (and transponder usage by pay- ing users) or manual vehicle count surveys (although such surveys are often expensive and time consuming). A second measure commonly used to validate the performance of priced managed lanes is travel-time savings. By comparing travel times in the priced lanes with congested-condition travel times prior to their existence or in the parallel general-purpose lanes, travel-time savings measures can be calculated. This performance measure, which is becoming a more commonly applied metric to characterize and validate the benefits of implementing congestion pricing, also can be used to help indicate measures of reliability or efficiency. Other measures of traffic applied in a validation capacity are more specialized, and the deci- sion to use them rests on context and goal specificity. For example, priced corridors with tran- sit service may require knowing park-and-ride lot usage to understand effects on transit rider- ship or carpool formation. In another example, measures of vehicle miles traveled may be helpful to demonstrate a more regional-scale reduction in travel, a possible goal in areas contemplating priced managed lane expansion to the network level. Public Perception Knowledge of a priced managed lane’s existence and purpose, acceptance of it as a mobility option, and satisfaction with the service it provides are characterized qualitatively through pub- lic perception. Given priced managed lanes’ relatively recent existence as an operational form of providing traditional roadway capacity and the skepticism or criticism that it can generate, mea- suring public perception is a critical component of a performance evaluation program. Representative Public Perception Goals. Gauging public perception is at the heart of goals that seek to validate a variably priced managed lane project. Representative goals may include achieving or sustaining a prescribed level of satisfaction with the facility’s operation. Specific tar- gets of perception, such as travel-time savings, safety, or equity can be established and tracked. Social equity is discussed in depth in Section 3.1.4. In general, measuring public perception requires an appropriate instrument (e.g., surveys, focus groups, or interviews). Public outreach becomes a prime factor in establishing these goals and measuring their achievement. A detailed discussion of integrating performance evaluation and public outreach, including means of collecting attitudinal information, is provided in Chap- ter 4 of these guidelines. Provided here are details of the most commonly used and relevant performance measures for capturing and quantifying public perception. Most Frequently Applied Public Perception Measures. Public perception measures (as item- ized in Table 3-1) focus on awareness, acceptance, and satisfaction. With all three of these measures, specificity can range from the very broad to the more explicit. For example, general awareness of a facility’s existence as a travel option can be queried as easily as its specific features, such as pricing policy or hours of availability. Awareness of planned toll adjustments or future expansion may also be of interest. Similarly, acceptance and satisfaction measures can be general or specific. Table 3-5 summarizes the most commonly applied public perception performance measures, with the majority of them focusing on satisfaction. Apart from awareness, acceptance, and satisfaction, one public perception measure (not commonly used) is the tracking of media exposure (e.g., recording the number of positive and negative news reports about the facility). What is most difficult about gauging public perception, however, is that there are no “loop detectors” for measuring it. That is, to make measurements that are inherently qualitative or subjective, a different set of tools is required—those that capture attitudes, as detailed in Chapter 4. In addition, many measures are stakeholder-group-specific and must be tailored to 32 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

a specific issue of significance. Nonetheless, some measures are considered to be of general interest (see Table 3-5). The following two sections explain how these measures are used in (1) ongoing operations of the priced facility and (2) making the facility’s case to the public and other interested parties. Operations: Public Perception Measures as Indirect Inputs to Facility Operations. Measures of public perception are not generally used—at least in a direct sense—to manage the operations of a variably priced managed lane facility. The feedback assembled by assessing public percep- tion can influence operational decisions, but does not dictate the specific daily procedures, policies, or business practices (e.g., toll adjustments or maintenance schedules) that apply to a facility’s operation. Validation: Using Public Perception Performance Measures to Validate Variably Priced Managed Lanes. All public perception measures serve a validation capacity and play a second- ary role to those measures that dictate a facility’s operation—at least among operating facilities that have provided the foundation to these guidelines. However, an agency contemplating the implementation of a priced managed lane project may view certain public perception measures as key to its performance evaluation program if, for example, a particular issue, such as user equity, is expected to be highly visible. Also, results of public perception measures may require changes to customer service functions or public communication policies. Survey instruments, focus groups, or interviews are gen- erally used to collect data for public perception measures. These tools are described in greater detail in Section 4.2; their advantages and disadvantages along with estimated costs are provided in Table 4-2. Generally speaking, these measures are more demanding and costly to collect and syn- thesize because of the user-specific, manual collection process required of attitudinal information. Because of this, their col- lection is often done on either a “before-and-after” or periodic basis. Surveyed public perceptions can be collected prior to the opening of the priced facility, either once or in several waves, and compared with similar results after opening. Once operational, it may be desirable to continue to collect these types of measures periodically (e.g., annually or biannually) or as resources allow. Before-and-after surveys may focus on more market research, acceptance, and awareness issues, while periodic, post-opening-day performance measurement will likely focus on user satisfaction. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 33 Performance Measures Total No. ofMeasures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary Satisfaction: general/perceived value/how well? 4 4 Awareness: general/of the facility/how much? 3 3 Satisfaction: traffic conditions/reliability 3 3 Satisfaction: perceived time savings 3 3 Satisfaction: perceived safety 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Table 3-5. Most frequently applied performance measures—public perception. Example: Periodic Customer Satisfaction Surveys As part of its performance evaluation program for the SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California, the Orange County Transportation Authority conducts a periodic customer satisfac- tion survey. Approximately 400 to 500 customers are asked to respond to an established list of questions so that comparisons can be made and trends charted across surveys, which are now conducted biennially, rather than annually. Among other issues, the survey focuses on cus- tomer satisfaction; expectations and perceptions of OCTA’s management of the lanes; attitudes regarding the lanes’ benefits, toll policies, and customer service; and awareness of existing com- munication programs and their effectiveness.

As shown in Table 3-5, measures of satisfaction are the most commonly applied in practice. General satisfaction with the facility, satisfaction with the perceived value the facility offers, or how well customers are satisfied with the facility are frequently applied measures. Similar mea- sures directed at facility awareness are also prevalent. Generally though, awareness measures are collected prior to and just after the opening of a facility, as familiarity with the project grows after opening. From there, satisfaction with its performance becomes more relevant. Of the more spe- cific satisfaction performance measures, traffic conditions (congestion levels), reliability, per- ceived time savings, and perceived safety have been found to be the most significant. What is important to keep in mind when formulating measures of public perception is that these measures should address issues of public concern identified through a public outreach process. From region to region, project to project, the key issues worth tracking and respond- ing to before, during, and after project implementation are often more unique than alike. In this manner, public perception measures should be tailored appropriately to each project application. Facility Users The term facility users refers to other characteristics of those who make trips on a priced man- aged lane facility and the characteristics of the trips themselves. Representative Facility User Goals. Understanding who the users of a facility are serves both operational and validation goals. One simple goal may be to increase patronage of the facility. Another goal may be to know the number of transponders issued to help understand how many to have on hand for future distribution. Often, however, characteristics of a facility’s users are inputs to developing and measuring goals formulated under other evaluation subjects. For exam- ple, from a validation perspective, knowing the socioeconomic profile of a facility’s user base can help track the extent to which the goal of mitigating negative equity change is achieved (the spe- cial case of social equity is further discussed in Section 3.1.4). Operationally, users’ departure times or trip times-of-day can inform decisions on setting toll policies, which can be tied to goals of congestion reduction or revenue generation. Most Frequently Applied Facility User Measures. Measures of facility users primarily focus on characteristics of the users themselves or the trips they take. Specific data on their accounts or toll transaction type are also found among those measures used in practice. The full list derived from current operating facilities is shown in Table 3-1. User characteristics include demographic and socioeconomic data, vehicle data, and whether any special registration exists (HOV or hybrid vehicle, for example). Trip characteristics include, among others, frequency, departure times, travelshed determinations, overall trip length, and trip purpose. 34 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Performance Measures Total No. of Measures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary User home zip code 4 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 3 3 4 2 1 3 3 Frequency of use (trips) 4 Trip O-D/travelshed determination 4 No.of transponders issued 3 User demographics/socioeconomics 3 Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Table 3-6. Most frequently applied performance measures—facility users.

Research indicates that a user’s home zip code, as well as various demographic and socioeco- nomic data (not detailed further in these guidelines) are the most commonly applied user char- acteristic measures, as shown in Table 3-6. Specific to users’ trips, frequency and travelshed or full origin-destination determinations are most frequently used. Finally, tracking the number of transponders is pervasive, but in reality, expected of any toll operator using ETC equipment, even if not explicitly reported in their performance evaluation materials. The following two sections explain how these measures are used in both the ongoing operations of the priced facility and in making the facility’s case to the public and other interested parties. Operations: Facility User Measures as Indirect Inputs to Facility Operations. Generally, measures of a facility’s users are used in a validation capacity and less so for operations. As with public perception measures, data collected about users and their trips may serve to inform oper- ations and policy decisions, but generally apply to only back-office daily operations, rather than the facility itself. Managing customer accounts and registrations, issuing transponders, and for- mulating potential (long-term) adjust- ments to facility operation based on trip frequencies and times-of-day are sev- eral operational aspects that can be informed through user measures. Gen- erally, these measures are used with less frequency than those (e.g., volumes or speeds) monitored on a real-time basis to make immediate adjustments to facility operation (as with dynamic tolls) or that feed into later performance reviews for periodic adjustments (as with a fixed toll schedule). However, these measures can act as indirect inputs to system performance and be used to plan for future operational changes or expansion. For example, user vehicle classification or the number of HOV registrations may help predict when an adjustment from HOV2+ to HOV3+ may become necessary. Validation: Characterizing Facility Users and Their Trips to Validate Vari- ably Priced Managed Lanes. Many measures of system users are collected to validate the project. Measures of user characteristics, especially demographics and socioeconomics, help facility opera- tors understand their customer base. This knowledge, in turn, can be used to communicate who is benefiting from the facility (e.g., are they just those “wealthy” enough to pay or are lower income groups prominent users as well) and how widespread those benefits reach. Similarly, trip characteristics help Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 35 Using Performance Data to Shape Transportation Policy In addition to being used to optimize the operation of pricing projects and to validate the use of congestion pricing to the public at large, per- formance monitoring data can also be used to inform decision making on transportation policy issues related to the use of congestion pricing. One such issue being addressed with increased frequency across the United States is whether single-occupant hybrid and low-emission vehi- cles should be afforded similar privileges to HOV vehicles, including open access to HOV lanes and use of HOT lanes at no cost. Initially, some states passed laws providing drivers of alternative-fuel and low-emission vehicles open access to HOV lanes, regardless of the number of occupants in the vehicle in order to promote the use of these vehicles. However, since their introduction, hybrid vehicles have become widely available and more affordable and are often sought after by drivers interested in lowering their fuel bills. In some congested areas (e.g., greater Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles), drivers have purchased hybrid vehicles for the express purpose of using HOV lanes to bypass con- gested areas while driving alone. This policy has important repercussions on highly used HOV lanes such as I-66 and I-95 in Northern Virginia, where low-emission vehicles can account for up to 17 percent of the vehi- cles in HOV lanes during peak periods. The viability of potential HOV-to- HOT conversions is also diminished in corridors where a large percentage of peak-period vehicles in HOV lanes actually consists of SOV hybrids. Accurate performance monitoring data is essential in quantifying the effects that hybrid and low-emission vehicles have on the performance of congested managed lane facilities in peak periods. Performance data can also be used to derive other important pieces of information, including comparisons of the emissions of multiple SOV hybrid vehicles to HOV or transit vehicles carrying the same number of people. Perfor- mance monitoring data will likely play an increasingly important role to transportation professionals and policymakers as they consider this and other related issues.

inform where and when users travel. This data can be used to explore potential reduction in peak- period usage or shifts to alternative routes, common goals among congestion-priced facilities. Collection methods and frequencies vary for user measures. Some measures, such as demograph- ics, transponders issued, or vehicle make, are naturally tracked through the customer registration/management process. Again though, for facilities that do not require mandatory transponder usage or registration, this data cannot be obtained without manual survey work. Soliciting some user measures is possible only through surveys, such as total trip length (includ- ing non-priced segments) and trip purpose. Collection of this data is naturally done on an infre- quent, as-needed basis. Comprehensive travelshed determinations may even require travel demand forecasting or modeling efforts. System Operations For the purposes of these guidelines, system operations refer to operational aspects of a priced facility that are not directly related to measures of traffic, as discussed in the Traffic Performance section. They are categorized in five ways: • Finance • Enforcement • Safety • Customer service • System function Representative System Operations Goals. A wide vari- ety of goals can be set by and evaluated against system opera- tions. A significant system operations goal is to collect a cer- tain level of revenue. Another goal may be to not exceed a certain threshold for violation rates. Maintaining or improv- ing levels of safety after the conversion of HOV lanes to HOT operation is often tracked. Finally, system operators may want to achieve established levels of customer service or tar- gets of system equipment availability/accuracy. Most Frequently Applied System Operations Measures. Because of system operations’ broad scope, a wide variety of measures are used to track this evaluation area as detailed in Table 3-1. Finance measures include revenue (e.g., tolls and fees) and expenditures (O&M). Enforcement measures track data that includes traffic stops, violation rates, and citations issued. Measures of safety often look at acci- dent rates and incident response times. A long and very detailed number of performance met- rics can measure customer service—from volumes of inquiry and comments received (positive or negative), to customer service center response time and average inquiry resolution time. Application of these measures is highly dependent on facility sponsor preference, as discussed below. Finally, measures of system function focus on facility and specific equipment availability and accuracy, numbers of equipment incidents, and repair rates. As indicated in Table 3-7, system operations performance measures are widely collected in practice across all five categories. Those measures related to finance are the most commonly used among operating facilities, with measures of safety and customer service also factoring signifi- cantly in performance evaluation programs. The following two sections explain how these measures are used in both ongoing operations of the priced facility and in making the facility’s case to the public and other interested parties. Many validation measures can also be used to make operational changes to the facility, such as 36 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Example: Surveyed User Characteristics WSDOT has conducted an online survey of Good To Go! account holders who use the SR 167 HOT lanes to obtain a representative cross section of its users. Among the results, WSDOT has high- lighted the distribution of users’ age, income level, and vehicle make in its publicly available performance evaluation publications. Although the numbers reported are not adjusted for actual proportions within the population at large, WSDOT states that the data helps to dispel the “Lexus Lane” concern that only the “rich” can afford to use the lanes.

when system equipment performance measures may indicate the need for a repair or replace- ment. However, these measures still serve to validate the integrity of facility system operations, and in turn, the facility itself. Operations: System Operations Performance Measures as Direct and Indirect Inputs to Facility Operations. Among the five categories of system operations performance measures, financial performance data is often used in the operation of priced managed lanes. Performance measures of enforcement, safety, customer service, and system function may also be used operationally, but are discussed in the validation section. Specific to finance, the average toll paid, highest toll paid, and total number of transactions can factor into the algorithms established for dynamic variably priced facilities. Likewise, these factors could be used in periodically evaluating the toll sched- ules of a fixed variably priced facility. Both the average toll paid and highest toll paid are indicators of whether an algorithm is responding appropriately to traffic levels, without excessive lags, overcompensation, or abrupt increases and decreases. Toll revenue is also a key operational performance measure. Although more significant to toll facilities (see Section 3.3), priced managed lane revenue is a significant consideration for recovering operations and maintenance expenditures and potentially contributing to repaying capital cost expenditures on the facility itself, investing in parallel general-purpose lane improvements, or other roadways (priced or unpriced) under the purview of the facility sponsor. Collection of toll revenue data is managed through ETC equipment and does not represent a significant cost once a facility is operational. The data is captured on an ongoing, real-time basis and can be considered a must-have among performance evaluation measures. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 37 Performance Measures Total No. of Measures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary Revenue (toll/charge) 6 3 4 1 5 5 4 3 4 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 Number of violations/citations/fines 6 6 Average toll/highest toll 5 1 O&M expenditures 5 3 Total transactions 4 3 Collisions/accidents 4 4 Incident response time/duration 4 4 Inquiry activity (call, email) 4 4 System equipment availability 4 4 4 4 4 4 Revenue (fee) 3 2 1 2 Total traffic stops/ responses 3 2 System equipment incidents 3 3 Mean time to respond/repair (system incidents) 3 3 3 3 3 Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Table 3-7. Most frequently applied performance measures—system operations. Example: Toll Revenue and Operations Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise closely monitors toll transactions and revenue on the 95 Express between Miami and (eventually) Fort Lauderdale. FTE summarizes all applied tolls, tolled and toll- exempt trips, and gross revenue into monthly performance measure reports. FDOT uses this data to chart monthly revenue trends and rev- enue receipts during different time periods— P.M. peak, weekend, or weekday, for example— from month to month. FDOT compiles similar information for toll rates and maximum tolls. Coupled with additional measured data, FDOT optimizes facility operations though an enhanced understanding of the relationships between toll rates, traffic volumes, and speeds.

Validation: Using System Operations Performance Mea- sures to Validate Variably Priced Managed Lanes. Revenue data (i.e., tolls, fees, fines), as discussed above, can also be used in a validation capacity to show that certain levels of income are helping to make the case that implementation of a priced managed lane project was a wise investment. Safety is frequently a primary concern of departments of transportation and other roadway facility operators. Although challenging to collect and use on a comparative basis, data based on accident or collision records has been commonly found in use among operating facilities as a means to validate safety. (Operational changes may occur from safety data outcomes as well.) Collision data is typically collected by public safety agencies (police departments, for example) and often has data gaps and considerable lags in availability (often 6 months or more). It becomes the facility sponsor’s responsibility to make sense of this data. Using it to compare safety conditions before and after project implementation or in comparison to paral- lel general-purpose lanes is complicated by the need to under- stand the precise accident cause and location, data that is often unclear or absent from police records. For example, just because the location of an accident might be recorded as within the extent of a priced lane, the priced lane itself may not have been the origin location or cause. A situation such as this makes it difficult to determine if the configuration or presence of a priced lane was the root cause of the accident and thus claim if it is more or less “safe.” Enforcement of occupancy and toll payment requirements is an important measure to present to a public that expects a high level of integrity for a service that requires payment or active participation in a carpool. Legitimate HOV users will want to be assured that in the case of conversion to HOT oper- ation, their benefits are not diminished. Minimizing toll eva- sion (an issue for non-barrier-separated lanes) is significant to the facility operator. In both cases, measures of enforcement such as traffic stops and violation rates are relevant and help to vali- date the expectation for fair application of the facility’s rules and requirements. (Again, enforce- ment outcome data may also lead to facility operational changes to reduce occupancy violations or toll evasion.) Confirmation of the delivery of high-quality customer service can be evaluated by many mea- sures. Facility sponsors will want to consider tailoring a selection of these measures based on the role the agency plays in providing customer service functions, public outreach outcomes, and other needs. If the operation of the facility is provided by a private entity to collect tolls and man- age customer service, evaluation measures and reporting requirements can be specified in the contract with the entity. The most commonly applied customer service measure in practice is level of customer inquiry (by phone or email); generally low levels of inquiry are desirable because they are indicative of good customer satisfaction. A second common measure—incident response time by public safety agencies or safety service patrols—can be considered both a cus- tomer service and safety indicator. 38 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Example: Monitoring Safety FDOT tracks safety conditions on the 95 Express using police crash reports. Two years of crash data will be needed before definitive safety information is available. Nonetheless, initial evaluation of incidents has not provided any indication of safety concerns. To supplement traditional police reports, FDOT installed video monitoring equipment along the 95 Express cor- ridor to capture incidents that may not have been recorded in the past. Part of FDOT’s reason for measuring safety is to comply with the fed- eral requirements of the national Urban Partner- ships Agreement program. Example: Incident Response Along the 91 Express Lanes, OCTA tracks the number and response time of safety service patrol trips made to assist motorists. Providing this service and minimizing response time is in keeping with OCTA’s goal to provide enhanced customer service along the express lanes (this is also reflected in its higher levels of regular main- tenance). In addition, minimizing this response time is important to user safety as the two-lane configuration (in both directions) lacks sufficient shoulder space for stopped vehicles.

Finally, validating the proper function of the managed lanes’ system equipment (and any need for potential operational changes) can require certain performance evaluation measures. Fre- quently applied measures include system equipment availability (transponder readers and other toll collection hardware, cameras, and other vehicle detection and monitoring equipment), the number of system incidents (failures, errors, etc.), and the mean time to repair the equipment. Collection of these measures can be built into the software that manages the systems and directed to produce reports as necessary. Environment Performance measures to evaluate a variably priced managed lane facility’s effect on the envi- ronment are not widely used in practice, given that the overall effects of improved efficiency in heavily traveled highway corridors are not likely to generate meaningful improvements to such environmental conditions as air quality or noise. This is in sharp contrast to area or cordon pric- ing schemes, which can reduce regional emissions by an order of magnitude not imaginable for single highway improvement projects—the Stockholm Congestion Tax trial reduced carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions within the city by 14 percent and within Stockholm County by 2.5 percent. If there is particular interest in monitoring the performance of priced managed lane projects on emissions, information on emission rates can be calculated using traf- fic volume and speed data as inputs to standard air quality forecasting tools, such as EPA’s MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software. Transit Transit refers to aspects of transit service that operate on the priced managed lane facility or corridor. Transit service within the facility’s travelshed may also be of interest, where it can offer an alternate route between origins and destinations served by the managed lanes’ corridor. Representative Transit Goals. Goals related to transit service pertain to priced facilities that have transit operating along its corridor or at least within the same region/travelshed. Transit goals include not degrading or reducing service. This goal may pertain to HOT lanes converted from prior HOV lanes that serve transit vehicles (express bus service, for example) and must deal with increased traffic levels from paying SOV users. Improvements in transit service may also be an established goal if system enhancements, such as the addition of new capacity or park-and- ride facilities, are incorporated as part of a priced managed lane project. Most Frequently Applied Transit Measures. Aspects of transit service include performance, ridership, finance (revenue), and quality of service (as measured attitudinally through customer surveys). Research indicates (as shown in Table 3-8) that transit performance is most often mea- sured by travel times, on-time rates, or excessive wait times (delay), as well as ridership or board- ing counts. Other measures used less frequently include farebox revenue and O&M expenditures, as well as quality, satisfaction, and reliability as perceived by customers. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 39 Performance Measures Total No. ofMeasures Used Operations Key Secondary Travel time/on-time/excess wait 3 1 2 1 2 Ridership/ boardings 3 3 3 Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Validation Table 3-8. Most frequently applied performance measures—transit.

The following two sections explain how these measures are used in ongoing operations of the priced facility and in making the facility’s case to the public and other interested parties: • Operations: Transit Performance Measures as Direct and Indirect Inputs to Facility Oper- ations. Transit performance measures are not generally collected as direct inputs to priced facility operation. However, one exception was presented in the traffic evaluation area above. There, bus travel times were used to derive average speeds, which in turn were tied directly to the decision to raise tolls if thresholds were not met. In this case, the data was acquired from transponders outfitted to the buses. • Validation: Using Transit Performance Measures to Validate Variably Priced Managed Lanes. If the priced managed lane facility sponsor or operator is also the agency responsible for transit service, acquiring transit performance data is not difficult. Otherwise, such data needs to be acquired (if it exists) from individual transit agencies. Obtaining the performance data sought, however, requires establishing a good working relationship with that agency and coordinating data collection efforts. Transit data can be used to validate operations, to ensure non-impacted or improved transit service as measured most often by travel times, on-time arrivals, delay, and ridership. Economics Economics is another analysis area not generally assessed for a variably priced managed lane project. Effects on local businesses and regional competitiveness are of extreme interest in a region implementing an area or cordon pricing project, but this is not normally the case with priced managed lanes. Nonetheless, improved access along highly traveled corridors such as the SR 91, which connects residential communities in Riverside County with employment centers in Orange County, California, would be expected to have a positive economic effect. However, it is extremely challenging to measure the precise effect of an individual transportation improve- ment on regional economic trends. This type of analysis would be more likely to rely on the results of economic models, which would allow a comparison to be made between model out- puts and data collected on regional economic activity and real estate prices. Land Use Performance measures to evaluate a variably priced managed lane facility’s effects on land use are not commonly used in practice and are not generally recommended by these guidelines. Nonetheless, a facility sponsor may want to consider these measures (such as residential or com- mercial land use trends) if found to be a particular issue of concern in the region. 3.3 Performance Measurement for Toll Facilities with Variable Pricing As with the other forms of pricing, performance measurement for variably priced toll facili- ties is used to document traffic operations and service levels and inform decisions on adjustments to operational policies or physical configuration, which may include toll plazas. Performance monitoring data is also used to document changes in travel patterns and peak-period congestion as a result of the implementation of variably priced tolls, thereby validating the use of conges- tion pricing. In addition, most new or existing toll facilities where variable pricing could be intro- duced are run by toll authorities that rely on toll proceeds as their primary revenue source. As such, performance measurement for variably priced toll facilities is also likely to have a more concentrated focus on toll revenues and financial performance compared with variably priced managed lane projects. This reflects the fact that most toll facilities are self-financing facilities built with debt leveraged from future toll proceeds. As such, management is likely to track finan- cial performance closely and also likely to have bond covenants that must be honored. 40 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

These areas are of particular concern when variably priced tolling is introduced on legacy toll facilities that have previously used fixed tolls. The conversion of toll regimens from fixed to vari- able pricing can also be expected to involve a considerable amount of initial surveying to under- stand how travel behavior may change as a result of time-of-day pricing, together with travel demand and revenue modeling work to ascertain what the effects of variably priced tolling would be on overall revenue generation and financial performance. Once an acceptable level of com- fort is achieved on the likely outcomes of a conversion to variable pricing, a decision can be made on how and when to proceed with the conversion. After the implementation of variable pricing, financial performance would be closely tracked and compared with earlier forecasts. An optimal result would show that the introduction of variable pricing had no adverse effect on revenue gen- eration and was successful in reducing peak-period congestion through mode shifts from SOVs to HOVs and transit, shifts to non-peak travel times and alternative destinations, and elimi- nated trips. As a result, performance monitoring for projects involving the use of variably priced facility-wide tolls may also need to include capacity assessments demonstrating the effects of shifts to HOV and transit on the capacities of those systems. Given the relatively small number of toll facilities using time-of-day pricing (see Table 2-2) and the fact that only 2 of the 12 case studies conducted for NCHRP Project 08-75 involved the use of variably priced tolls on entire facilities, the recommendations provided here are based on the findings of the research effort, together with industry standards and best practices. 3.3.1 Distinguishing Characteristics of Toll Facilities with Variable Pricing As described below, despite the small number of toll facilities using variable pricing, as with the other forms of pricing, some distinguishing characteristics will influence performance mon- itoring programs for these facilities. Configuration and Physical Integration with Other Regional Infrastructure Toll facilities using variably priced tolls can have remarkably different configurations, rang- ing from tolled bridge and tunnel crossings to regional or long-distance tolled highways. The configuration of the facilities involved and their physical integration with other regional infra- structure will influence the metrics and thresholds used to monitor their performance. For exam- ple, speeds and lane volume capacities would be markedly higher for interstate highway facilities such as the New Jersey Turnpike than those on a bridge or tunnel such as the Lincoln Tunnel which connects traffic into the street grid of Manhattan. In all cases, the measures used to track the performance of variably priced toll facilities will need to be tailored to reflect the type of facility involved and its physical setting. Use of Manual vs. Electronic Toll Collection Toll facilities using variably priced tolls could feature several different collection methods: open road tolling, a toll barrier-less system whereby vehicles’ transponders are read by overhead gantries at the speed of traffic; transponder-based collection at a toll plaza, with or without bar- riers, but requiring traffic to slow or stop; manual toll collection (cash), either by a toll booth operator or collection machine; or combinations thereof. Open road tolling obviates the need for toll plazas and the inherent delays and operational challenges they introduce. Hybrid systems using manual and electronic toll collection require toll plazas and introduce new operational issues involving the overall balance between the number of manual and electronic booths and segregating vehicles equipped with transponders from those whose drivers will pay cash. These distinctions have a major influence on performance monitoring, given that monitoring for toll plazas is a complex endeavor often involving queuing and safety analyses, potentially requiring Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 41

aerial photography. These types of performance tools and measures would likely be used with variably priced toll facilities using hybrid collection systems, while they would not be needed for those using open road tolling. Congestion Pricing on New Versus Existing Toll Facilities It can be expected that the operator of almost any toll facility would have an established set of metrics it uses to monitor the performance of the facility, enabling it to track revenue genera- tion, user base, operational performance, and customer satisfaction. If variably priced tolls are introduced on an existing facility, these established monitoring programs would provide a wealth of baseline information and a platform for the ongoing monitoring activities. The operative issue in this type of situation would be to determine whether or not any additional information would be needed in order to assess how the introduction of variably priced tolls had influenced the over- all performance of the facility. If variable pricing is used on new toll facilities, then an entire mon- itoring protocol would need to be established prior to the opening of the facility. If the project sponsor operates other toll facilities, this process could involve a review and adaptation of the performance monitoring systems it already uses, and if it does not, the process would involve establishing an entirely new set of measures and procedures. Level of Public Interest As with other forms of pricing, the overall level of public interest in the use of variable pric- ing on new or existing toll facilities would be a key factor in establishing performance monitor- ing programs for these facilities. One of the main issues in the level of public interest would be whether or not congestion pricing is new to the region. In addition, if congestion pricing is intro- duced on an existing toll facility, this will likely involve a toll increase and would receive close scrutiny by elected officials, the media, and advocacy groups. In these cases, it will be helpful for the project sponsor to document the cost of congestion in the region and establish expectations and a means to track how the introduction of pricing will affect congestion levels in the corridor to be priced. As with other forms of pricing, when there is a high level of concern regarding the use of congestion pricing, project sponsors should develop more comprehensive monitoring programs in order to generate performance data demonstrating the effect of the project and its influence on areas of key concern. 3.3.2 Selection of Performance Measures for Toll Facilities with Variable Pricing This section provides specific factors for consideration, summaries of experience, and recom- mendations on the selection of performance measures for toll facilities with variable pricing. The section’s organization follows the order of the eight areas of evaluation identified among the operational congestion pricing projects examined as part of the NCHRP Project 08-75 research that produced these guidelines. These evaluation areas are tied directly to the goals of a project. Specific project goals can be formulated and measured by framing them within the context of the evaluation areas. These evaluation areas and the full set of identified performance measures were introduced in Table 3-1 in Section 3.1.5. The number of operational toll facilities with variable pricing is limited in practice. Five such instances were identified (see Table 2-2) and two were selected for close examination as part of the research behind these guidelines. The number of distinct performance measures captured within each evaluation area for the two facilities studied is shown in Table 3-9, along with the total number of measures identified overall among congestion pricing projects. Because of this limited subset, it is more difficult to conclusively extract performance measures most commonly used in practice to a set of general guidelines than in the case of variably priced managed lanes. These guidelines’ recommendations take this into account and also draw from existing knowl- 42 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

edge of industry best practice. However, it can be generally concluded that fewer evaluation areas are significant among toll facility performance monitoring requirements and a fewer number of performance measures are used compared to variably priced managed lanes. The full spectrum of performance measures used in practice is shown in Table 3-10. In most cases, a performance measure was used by just one facility examined; in a few cases, it was used by both facilities. The table also identifies whether the measures are generally applied in an operations or validation capacity and whether they play a key (primary) or secondary role in a typical perfor- mance evaluation program. Some performance measures that validate a project may also be used to make operational facility changes, and vice versa; operational measures may also help validate the project. Those marked as operations are the critical measures used to assess facility function against achievement of its primary goals (such as meeting revenue targets or traffic thresholds), while validation measures, which may also be used operationally, are applied on a lower priority basis (such as adjusting the configuration of toll plazas based on collision data analysis). Because of the limited sample size of operational facilities, other performance measures not listed in Table 3-10 could be significant or necessary to collect based on the goals set for a par- ticular facility. These measures may not have been captured by these guidelines’ research; however, the issues discussed for each evaluation area can be applicable to those performance measures not identified. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 43 Total Measures Identified Measures Used in Facilities Examined Traffic Performance 20 6 Public Perception 15 1 Facility Users 14 5 System Operations 15 4 Environment 3 0 Transit 7 1 Economics 9 0 Land Use 2 0 Table 3-9. Total performance measures by evaluation area. Evaluation Area Total No. ofMeasures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary Volume Vehicle volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) 2 1 1 1 1 Speed & Travel Time Travel times 1 1 1 VMT/VKT VMT/ VKT 1 1 1 Congestion Delay/ wait times 1 1 1 Congestion Queue length 1 1 1 Occupancy Avg. vehicle occupancy (auto) 1 1 1 Public Perception Satisfaction General/perceived value/how well? 1 1 1 Transaction Method Transponder/video/by-mail/cash 1 1 1 User Characteristics Vehicle classification 1 1 1 User Characteristics Vehicle registrations (HOV, vanpool, hybrid) 1 1 1 Trip Characteristics Time of day/ departure time 1 1 1 Trip Characteristics Toll spending/price paid (self-reported) 1 1 1 Safety Collisions/ accidents 2 2 2 Finance Total transactions 1 1 1 Finance Revenue (toll/ charge) 1 1 1 Finance Average toll/ highest toll 1 1 1 Transit Occupancy Ridership/ boardings 1 1 1 System Operations Performance Measures Purpose(No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Traffic Performance Facility Users Table 3-10. Performance measures in practice—toll facilities with variable pricing (all facilities examined).

Traffic Performance Traffic performance describes the fundamental purpose of a roadway: its ability to provide mobility to people and goods. It is the most important of the eight areas of evaluation and mea- sured through various traffic engineering measures that answer questions pertaining to the facil- ity about how much, how many, how fast, and by what mode. Representative Traffic Performance Goals. Goals for toll facilities with variable pricing most commonly involve traffic performance (as well as the revenue aspect of system operations). Achieving congestion reduction is one prominent example. This goal, in turn though, may be further characterized on a more measurable basis or within a context that better resonates with facility users or those interested in improved performance. To that end, the goal of achieving congestion reduction could more specifically be stated as reducing the volume or extent of peak- period congestion. Accomplishing this goal may require shifts in travel times to a shoulder period or alternate route/mode. As with variably priced managed lanes, traffic congestion reduc- tion goals often imply improved system efficiency or reliability. However, the research has shown that these goals are often subjective, hard-to-define, and dependent on location-specific con- texts. For example, one agency or region may define improved reliability simply as maintaining average speeds above 50 miles per hour, while another may characterize it as the ability to achieve a certain journey time 95 or more percent of the time. Significant differences in facility configu- ration play a role in these distinctions—a 50-mile toll facility may warrant characterization by travel-time reliability given its substantial length within a roadway network, whereas travel-time reliability may apply to a lesser extent to a tolled crossing, given that it likely represents only a small fraction of an overall roadway network’s length. Traffic Performance Measures? Measures of traffic, as indicated in Table 3-1, include vehi- cle and person volumes, speeds and travel times, mode share and vehicle occupancies, vehicle miles traveled, and indicators of congestion, (e.g., delay, queue lengths, and specially developed coefficients comparing specific metrics during congested and uncongested conditions). Other measures that incorporate traffic include bicycle and pedestrian measures and parking, although these are not generally applied to toll facilities with variable pricing. Those measures deemed only the most broadly and beneficially applicable are discussed here—others may offer equal or better value, depending on the context in which they are applied. Research shows that key performance measures of traffic for toll facilities with variable pric- ing depend significantly on the facility’s configuration—ranging from long-distance toll roads with open road tolling to short tolled crossings, potentially with manual toll collection. As with variably priced managed lanes, traffic volumes are critical to understanding facility usage. Other key measures include travel times and vehicle miles traveled (which relate more to toll roads than tolled crossings) and queue lengths and delay for facilities with toll booths incorporating man- ual collection or that require vehicles to slow as they pass through a point of toll collection. Applying Traffic Performance Measures. Facility configuration significantly influences the selection of traffic performance measures for toll facilities with variable pricing. Those that use toll booths with manual collection or those that require vehicles to slow as they pass through the point of toll collection (effectively any facility without open road tolling) will likely be con- cerned with queues and attendant delays at toll booths. These concerns will apply to legacy toll facilities that introduce variable pricing and retain this type of configuration for toll collection. Queuing and delay are also greater concerns for tolled crossings, which often represent a bottle- neck or choke point within broader roadway networks and where a facility’s traffic volume is concentrated over relatively short roadway segments. Greenfield toll facilities or those previously untolled will likely incorporate an open road toll system with mandatory electronic toll collec- tion, obviating consideration of queues and associated delay. 44 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

Safety analyses of toll plaza configurations—a performance measure under the system oper- ations evaluation area—are facilitated through an examination of queue length and delay in con- junction with collision location and rates. Aerial photography may be used to help conduct these analyses, although this method is relatively expensive and allows measurements to be made at only limited intervals. Day-to-day or even A.M. to P.M. peak comparisons would require mul- tiple collections to be made by the aerial vehicle. From an operations standpoint, vehicle volumes, as with variably priced managed lanes, are a must-have traffic performance measure. This measure fundamentally describes the usage of the facility and is a common input measure for making toll rate adjustments, dynamically, or periodically to a fixed toll rate schedule. Other measures of facility usage can figure into toll rate adjustments or help communicate the utility of the facility. For corridor-type toll facilities (i.e., those not tolled crossings), vehicle miles traveled also provides a good indication of system usage. Travel times can be used to benchmark expected travel conditions between tolling points and usefully compared to periods when variable pricing may not be employed or compared to alter- nate routes to the tolled corridor. Although not revealed in the research for these guidelines, speeds or LOS may also be applied to measuring the proper performance of a facility or its abil- ity to provide reliable travel conditions to its users. Finally, unlike with variably priced managed lanes, measures of vehicle occupancy, mode share, and person volume are not generally relevant to toll facilities, unless special accommodation is made for higher levels of vehicle occupancy as part of the tolling regime. Such facilities would effectively represent HOT lanes or ETL without parallel general-purpose lane capacity. Public Perception Toll facilities often garner public skepticism and scrutiny because of the requirement to pay for the use of road capacity, which is often perceived as a “free” public good. Familiarity with and acceptance of toll facilities can vary considerably based on historical experience and prevalence in any one particular region. In addition, the application of variable pricing on toll facilities has been limited. Given these considerations, public perception is an important factor in performance evaluation programs. Knowledge of a variably priced toll facility’s pur- pose, acceptance of it as a mobility option, and satisfaction with the service it provides are characterized qualitatively through public perception. Representative Public Perception Goals. Gauging public perception is at the heart of goals that seek to validate a vari- ably priced toll facility project. Representative goals may include achieving or sustaining a prescribed level of satisfaction with the facility’s operation. Specific targets of perception, travel time reliability, safety, or equity can be established and tracked. Social equity is discussed in depth in Section 3.1.4. In general, measuring public perception requires an appro- priate instrument such as surveys, focus groups, or interviews. Public outreach becomes a prime factor in establishing these goals and measuring their achievement. A detailed discussion of integrating performance evaluation and public outreach, including means of collecting attitudinal information, is pro- vided in Chapter 4 of these guidelines. Provided here are details of the most relevant performance measures for captur- ing and quantifying public perception. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 45 Example: Traffic Volume Monitoring on a Privately Operated Toll Road The Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) closely monitors traffic volumes on the Toronto area’s 407 ETR, which is privately operated by Highway 407 International, Inc. The concession- aire regularly provides Traffic Characteristics Reports to MTO, which include forecasts of antici- pated traffic volumes by vehicle type for the next 3-month period, traffic volume forecasts for the next year, and actual traffic counts for the past 3-month period. The primary purpose of these comprehensive data is to maintain the Province’s Freeway Traffic Management System and verify that the concessionaire’s performance meets the standards established in the Ground Lease Agree- ment. Toll rates remain at the discretion of the concession company, although certain traffic thresholds must be met in order to justify a change in rates. MTO maintains the right to assess severe penalties if toll rates are changed without the corresponding threshold having been met.

Public Perception Measures. Public perception measures (as itemized in Table 3-1) focus on awareness, acceptance, and satisfaction. With all three of these measures, specificity can range from the very broad to the more explicit. For example, general awareness of a facility’s existence as a travel option or the use of variable pricing can be queried as easily as its specific features, such as pricing policy or hours of availability. Awareness of planned toll adjustments or future expansion may also be of interest. Similarly, acceptance and satisfaction measures can be gen- eral or specific. The research uncovered few public perception measures used in practice, but that may be more an artifact of the maturity of the facilities studied than an indication of lack of pur- pose. Nonetheless, it can be expected that most public perception measures would focus on sat- isfaction, especially once a facility has been operational for some time. What is most difficult about gauging public perception, however, is that there are no “loop detectors” for measuring it. That is, to make measurements that are inherently qualitative or subjective, a different set of tools is required—those that capture attitudes, as detailed in Chapter 4. In addition, many measures are stakeholder-group-specific and must be tailored to a specific issue of significance. Application of Public Perception Measures. Measures of public perception are not gener- ally used—at least in a direct sense—to manage the operations of a toll facility. Certainly, the feedback assembled by assessing public perception can influence operational decisions, but does not dictate the specific daily procedures, policies, or business practices (e.g., toll adjustments or maintenance schedules) that apply to a facility’s operation. All public perception measures can be characterized as serving a validation capacity, as well as playing a secondary role to those measures that dictate a facility’s operation—at least among operating facilities that have provided information for these guidelines. It is possible, however, that an agency contemplating the implementation of a variably priced toll facility project may view certain public perception measures as key to the performance evaluation program if, for example, a particular issue, such as user equity, is expected to be highly visible. Additionally, results of public perception measures may require changes to customer service functions or pub- lic communication policies. Survey instruments, focus groups, or interviews are generally used to collect data for public perception measures. These tools are described in greater detail in Section 4.2, and their advan- tages and disadvantages along with estimated costs are provided in Table 4-2. Generally speak- ing, these measures are more demanding and costly to collect and synthesize because of the user- specific, manual collection process required to obtain such information. Because of this, their collection is often done on either a “before-and-after” or periodic basis. Surveyed public percep- tions can be collected prior to the opening of a toll facility or its conversion to variable pricing, either once or in several waves, and compared with similar results after opening. Once opera- tional, it may be desirable to continue to collect these types of measures on a periodic basis, such as annually or biannually, or as resources allow. Before-and-after surveys may focus on more market research, acceptance, and awareness issues, while periodic, post-opening-day perform- ance measurement will likely focus on user satisfaction. What is important to keep in mind when formulating measures of public perception is that they should address issues of public concern identified through a public outreach process. From region to region, project to project, the key issues worth tracking and responding to before, dur- ing, and after project implementation are often more unique than alike. In this manner, public perception measures should be tailored appropriately to each project application. Facility Users The term facility users refers to other characteristics of those who make trips on a toll facility with variable pricing and the characteristics of the trips themselves. 46 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

Representative Facility User Goals. Understanding who the users of a facility are serves both operational and validation goals. One simple goal may be to increase patronage of the facility. Another may be to know the number of transponders issued to help understand how many to have on hand for future distribution. Often, however, characteristics of a facility’s users are inputs to developing and measuring goals formulated under other evaluation subjects. For example from a validation perspective, knowing the socioeconomic profile of a facility’s user base can help mar- ket the facility to an expanded user base. This understanding, in turn, can help maximize (or maintain) levels of revenue. Revenue generation as a goal can also be served through operational measures such as knowing users’ departure times or trip times-of-day, which can inform deci- sions on setting toll policies. Facility User Measures. Measures of facility users primarily focus on characteristics of the users themselves or the trips they take. Specific data on their accounts or toll transaction type are also found among those measures used in practice. The full list derived from current operating facilities is shown in Table 3-1. User characteristics include demographic and socioeconomic data, vehicle data, and home zip code or other residence-identifying measures. Trip character- istics include, among others, frequency, departure times, travelshed determinations, overall trip length, and trip purpose. Application of Facility User Measures. Generally, measures of a facility’s users are used in a validation capacity and less so for operations. As with public perception measures, data col- lected about users and their trips may serve to inform operations and policy decisions, but gen- erally apply to only back-office daily operations, rather than the facility itself. Managing cus- tomer accounts and registrations, issuing transponders, and formulating potential (long-term) adjustments to facility operation based on trip frequencies and times-of-day are several opera- tional aspects that can be informed through user measures. These data may be critical inputs for examining the level of revenue a toll facility generates. Whether a public toll authority or private-sector operator, a greenfield toll facility or existing facil- ity that recently incorporated variable pricing, achieving defined targets for revenue is necessary to provide for planned expenditures on operations, maintenance, and enhancements, as well as honoring bond covenants and maintaining debt coverage ratios for past and future capital out- lays. Being able to predict revenue generation accurately depends on accurate and thorough facil- ity user data. This requirement is especially significant when the introduction of variable pricing (and future adjustments to a toll schedule) make predicting revenue more complicated and dependent on the share of users who shift their journey to an off-peak (cheaper) time or off the facility altogether by taking another route or mode, or choose not to make their trip at all. Validating a variably priced toll facility is also accomplished through measures of system users. Measures of user characteristics, especially demographics and socioeconomics, help facility operators understand their customer base. This knowledge can help communicate who is ben- efiting from the facility (e.g., Is the facility drawing customers who are only “wealthy” enough to pay or are lower income groups prominent users as well?) and how widespread those benefits are. Similarly, trip characteristics help inform where and when their users travel. As with exam- ining a revenue generation goal, this information can be used to explore the potential reduction in peak-period usage, a common goal among congestion-priced facilities. Collection methods and frequencies vary for user measures. Some measures, such as demographics, transponders issued, or vehicle make, are naturally tracked through the customer registration/management process. For facilities that use manual toll booths and do not require mandatory transponder usage, this data cannot be obtained without manual survey work. Solic- iting some user measures is possible only through surveys, such as total trip length (including non-priced segments) and trip purpose. Collection of such information is done on an infrequent, Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 47

as-needed basis. Comprehensive travelshed determinations may even require travel demand forecasting or modeling efforts. System Operations For the purposes of these guidelines, system operations refer to operational aspects of a priced facility that are not directly related to measures of traffic, as discussed in the Traffic Performance section. They are categorized in five ways: • Finance • Enforcement • Safety • Customer service • System function Representative System Operations Goals. A wide variety of goals can be set by and evalu- ated against system operations. The primary system operations goal for variably priced toll facil- ities is to collect a certain level of revenue. Safety is also an important goal for most roadway operators, toll or otherwise. Finally, system operators may want to achieve established levels of customer service or targets of system equipment availability/accuracy. System Operations Measures. Because of system operations’ broad scope, various measures are used to track this evaluation area as detailed in Table 3-1. Finance measures include revenue (tolls, fees, etc.) and expenditures (O&M). Enforcement measures track data that includes traf- fic stops, violation rates, and citations issued. Measures of safety often look at accident rates and incident response times. A long and very detailed number of performance metrics can measure customer service, from volumes of inquiry and comments received (positive or negative), to cus- tomer service center response time and average inquiry resolution time. Application of these measures is highly dependent on facility sponsor preference, as discussed below. Finally, mea- sures of system function focus on facility and specific equipment availability and accuracy, num- bers of equipment incidents, and repair rates. Research for these guidelines has shown that finance and safety are the two most prominent types of system operations measures used for variably priced toll facilities. Customer service and system function are also significant, although not necessarily revealed by the research. Violation rates may not factor as highly, unless specific occupancy requirements are part of the tolling regime (as with HOT lanes) or the toll facility has limited controlled access (i.e., those without toll booths and without a license plate detection system that automatically records and bills users, effectively negating the possibility for violations). Application of System Operations Measures. Finance. Among the five categories of system operations performance measures, financial performance data is universally used in the operation of variably priced toll facilities. In ana- lyzing revenue collection targets and trends, the average toll paid, highest toll paid, and total number of transactions can factor into decisions made on setting toll rates and schedules. A balance will need to be struck between managing traffic performance and generating an expected level of revenue. Budgets for operating expenses and maintenance are set and paid for with toll revenue. Bond issues to support facility construction or capital expansion or enhance- ments backed by future toll proceeds must meet established covenants or debt recovery ratios. These considerations make financial performance a priority. Off-peak discounts and/or less expensive shoulder periods are typical price differentiators (along with varying rates based on vehicle class and segment of roadway, if some are more heavily traveled than others) that if too “successful” or “generous” could erode a higher baseline level of revenue collection possible 48 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

without them. This concern may be especially apparent when moving to a variably price toll structure from a fixed one on an existing toll facility, as compared with instituting variable pricing on a greenfield toll facility, because of historical expec- tations for toll revenue collections. Collection of toll revenue data is managed through ETC equipment and does not represent a significant cost once a facility is operational. The data is captured on an ongoing, real-time basis and can be considered a must-have among performance evaluation measures. Enforcement. Enforcement of toll payment requirements (and vehicle occupancy if applicable) is an important measure to present to a public that expects a high level of integrity for a service that requires payment for use (or participation in a carpool if HOV requirements are applied in conjunction with variable pricing). Measures of enforcement such as traffic stops and violation rates are relevant in this case and help to validate the expectation for fair application of the facility’s rules and requirements. However, minimizing toll evasion is generally an issue only with barrier-free access to a toll road— with the incorporation of a license plate toll option, any user without a transponder can be billed through the mail, effec- tively eliminating violations. Safety. With respect to safety, its monitoring and reporting may factor more prominently in operators’ performance evaluation programs for variably priced toll roads than with untolled roads because of the greater public visibility a toll road typically generates, the increased traffic safety risks from toll booth configurations and queuing, and the need to scrutinize the level of service provided by a private owner and/or operator. Customer Service. Confirmation of the delivery of high-quality customer service can be eval- uated by many measures. Facility sponsors will want to consider tailoring a selection of these measures based on the role the agency plays in providing customer service functions, public out- reach outcomes, and other needs. If the operation of the facility is provided by a private entity to collect tolls and manage customer service, evaluation measures and reporting requirements can be specified in the contract with the entity. Based on the findings for variably priced managed lanes (which are also deemed applicable to variably priced toll facilities), the most commonly applied customer service measure in practice is level of customer inquiry (by phone or email); generally low levels of inquiry are desirable because they are indicative of good customer satisfaction. A second common measure—incident response time by public safety agencies or safety service patrols—can be considered both a cus- tomer service and safety indicator. System Function. Finally, validating the proper function of the managed lanes’ system equip- ment (and any need for potential operational changes) can require certain performance evaluation measures. These measures were also captured through the research of variably priced managed lanes. Frequently applied measures include system equipment availability (transponder readers and other toll collection hardware, cameras, and other vehicle detection and monitoring equip- ment), the number of system incidents (failures, errors, etc.), and the mean time to address the result of the incident. Collection of these measures can be built into the software that manages the systems and directed to produce reports as necessary. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 49 Example: Revenue is Key The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s implementation of variable pricing on the six tolled crossings between New Jersey and New York highlights the significance of carefully ana- lyzing the impact of variable pricing on toll rev- enue. Revenue is tracked closely and compared with the estimates generated by the agency’s sophisticated and well-calibrated traffic and rev- enue forecasting tools. As part of its standard accounting and business procedures, the Port Authority tracks the overall number of toll trans- actions for each of its crossings by vehicle class, time of day, and payment method. This detailed and historic time series data has enabled the Port Authority to study what effects the introduction of congestion pricing had on travel patterns for motorists using its crossings and heightened its focus on variations in the time of day of travel by vehicle type and toll facility.

Environment Performance measures to evaluate the effect on the environment from a toll facility with vari- able pricing are not widely used in practice. For existing toll facilities that shift from a flat rate toll structure to one with variable pricing, the overall effects of improved efficiency in heavily traveled highway corridors are not likely to generate meaningful improvements to such environ- mental conditions as air quality or noise. Environmental impacts from greenfield toll facilities will have been analyzed extensively during the planning and environmental review phase of the project. Measuring predicted impacts after facility opening may be of concern to some project sponsors, depending on stakeholder expectations. If there is particular interest in monitoring the performance of variably priced toll facility projects on emissions, information on emission rates can be calculated using traffic volume and speed data as inputs to standard air quality forecast- ing tools, such as EPA’s MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software. Transit Transit refers to aspects of transit service that operate on the variably priced toll facility or cor- ridor. Transit service within the facility’s travelshed may also be of interest, where it can offer an alternate route between origins and destinations served by the toll road corridor. Representative Transit Goals. Goals related to transit service pertain to priced facilities that have transit operating along its corridor or at least within the same region/travelshed. Transit goals include improving service during peak periods by encouraging travel-time shifts from con- gested periods to off-peak or shoulder periods, to alternate routes, or to transit itself. Improve- ments in transit service may also be an established goal if system enhancements, such as the addition of new park-and-ride facilities, are incorporated as part of a toll facility conversion to variable pricing. Transit Measures. Aspects of transit service include performance, ridership, finance (rev- enue), and quality of service (as measured attitudinally through customer surveys). Although the research of variably priced toll facilities did not reveal extensive use of transit performance measures, those used in practice most commonly among variably priced managed lanes can be applied instead. For those facilities, transit performance is most often measured by travel times, on-time rates, or excess wait times (delay), as well as ridership or boarding counts. Other measures used less frequently include farebox revenue and O&M expenditures, as well as quality, satisfaction, and reliability as perceived by customers. Application of Transit Measures. Prioritizing transit vehicles (typically express bus service) along highway corridors is often accomplished by dedicating at least one transit-only or HOV lane to its use such that it can reliably travel in free-flow or near free-flow conditions during peak travel periods. It can be assumed, however, that transit vehicles could also use a variably priced toll facility where no priority distinction is given to transit operations. In this case, a variable toll structure that reduces peak-period congestion by encouraging less travel during that time could benefit transit operations. The same benefit would occur with variably priced tolled crossings (bridges and tunnels) if no dedicated lane is already provided for the transit vehicle. A favorable toll rate (or no toll if the facility operator is also the transit operator) could be assessed in order to not penalize the transit service. Measured transit data would be used to validate the toll facil- ity’s performance monitoring plan, by documenting reliable and/or improved transit service, as measured most often by travel times, on-time arrivals, delay, and ridership. If the variably priced toll facility sponsor or operator is also the agency responsible for transit service, acquiring transit performance data is not difficult. Otherwise such data needs to be acquired (if it exists) from individual transit agencies. Obtaining the performance data sought, 50 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

however, requires establishing a good working relationship with that agency and coordinating data collection efforts. Economics Economics is not generally assessed for a variably priced toll facility project. Effects on local businesses and regional competitiveness are of extreme interest in a region implementing an area or cordon pricing project, but this is not normally the case with single toll facilities. Nonetheless, improved travel-time reliability along highly traveled corridors, such as the 407 ETR in Toronto, would be expected to have a positive economic effect. However, it is extremely challenging to measure the precise effect of an individual transportation improvement on regional economic trends. This type of analysis would be more likely to rely on the results of economic models, which would allow a comparison to be made between model outputs and data collected on regional economic activity and real estate prices. Land Use Performance measures to evaluate a variably priced toll facility’s effects on land use are not commonly used in practice and are not generally recommended by these guidelines. Nonethe- less, a facility sponsor may want to consider these measures (such as residential or commercial land use trends) if land use is a particular issue of concern. 3.4 Performance Measurement for Cordon and Area Pricing Projects Given their extremely high visibility and sensitive nature, performance measurement for cor- don and area pricing programs is especially important and integral to their ongoing success. (The distinction between cordon and area pricing is provided in Sections 1.2.3 and 3.4.2.) Although the use of congestion pricing on individual facilities or lanes affects travel pattern in given cor- ridors, cordon and area pricing programs have profound effects on travel patterns across entire regions. In addition, cordon and area pricing programs are also likely to have important effects— both real and perceived—on other important issues, such as regional emissions and air quality, business impacts, and economic competitiveness—issues that are not likely to be high-priority concerns with other forms of congestion pricing and are likely to require creative approaches in order to be monitored in a meaningful way. Given the regional nature of their influence on travel patterns and congestion, performance monitoring programs for cordon and area pricing projects should involve the collection of com- parable sets of data in different locations around the region, both within the pricing zone and outside it. Although the benefits in terms of reductions in traffic volumes and congestion and increased travel speeds will be greater in the pricing zone than outside it, the benefits may actu- ally be the greatest at pinch points leading into the pricing zone, including bridges, tunnels, and major arterial streets or highways. Monitoring programs for cordon and area pricing projects should focus on these types of locations and generate data showing how the benefits of pricing accrue to surrounding areas as well as the pricing zone itself. Project sponsors should also con- sider collecting baseline data in any neighborhoods or communities that may oppose the imple- mentation of cordon or area pricing programs and then monitor appropriate metrics such as traffic and environmental conditions in those locations once the system is implemented. In many cases, it is likely that conditions could improve, allowing project sponsors to use the performance monitoring data to garner support for the pricing program. Another area of concern with the use of cordon or area pricing is the ability for existing tran- sit infrastructure to accommodate the increased passenger loads that would be expected as Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 51

motorists shift their trips to transit.4 Given the heavy utilization of rail transit and the longer lead times needed to expand rail capacity, preparations for the area pricing programs in both Lon- don and Stockholm included the purchase of new bus fleets to augment transit capacity. This was a particularly strategic move because increased travel speeds, particularly within the pricing zones themselves, made bus travel far more attractive than in the past, once the pricing systems were activated. Performance monitoring programs for cordon or area pricing schemes should track utilization, crowding, and travel times on all relevant rail and bus lines likely to be affected by the new programs. Equity is also an inevitable concern with cordon and area pricing programs. Together, the high cost of parking and excellent transit availability in locations where cordon or area pricing may be introduced limit the number of people in lower income groups who make regular trips to these areas by automobile. However, residents in areas with poorer transit access or other low- to moderate income earners who happen to have free parking at their places of employment may be affected by the introduction of cordon or area pricing. If these types of concerns arise, it may be helpful to develop specific performance metrics to track how these communities are affected by the pricing program. Social equity is discussed in greater depth in Section 3.1.4. Lastly, by their very definition, cordon and area pricing programs will likely require the instal- lation of new toll collection systems and technologies, including character recognition systems capable of reading license plates, as well as back office accounting systems to process payments and manage accounts and customer service centers. The performance monitoring programs for cordon and area pricing systems should include appropriate parameters to track the perfor- mance of these systems, the accuracy of the data collected, and the extent to which desired per- formance levels are achieved. The findings and recommendations that follow on performance monitoring for cordon or area pricing projects are informed by the case studies prepared for the congestion charging pro- grams operating in Singapore, London, and Stockholm, which represent the three largest appli- cations of cordon or area pricing in the world. The findings and recommendations are also sup- plemented by the experiences of the guidelines’ authors in supporting the exploration of the introduction of congestion pricing in Manhattan, together with industry standards and best practices. In all cases, the use of cordon or area pricing should be expected to be a highly sensi- tive issue and of interest to elected officials and community and stakeholder groups of all types. As such, performance monitoring efforts for these projects should involve extensive exploration of public opinions and concerns. The information gathered through this outreach process should be used to identify a tailored set of performance measures that track parameters of par- ticular interest to different stakeholder groups, as well as to identify those analysis areas likely to be affected by the use of cordon or area pricing. 3.4.1 Distinguishing Characteristics of Cordon and Area Pricing Programs As with the other forms of pricing, some variables distinguish cordon or area pricing schemes from one another and are likely to influence performance monitoring programs. Toll Collection Technologies Two primary types of technologies can be used to collect the entry fees associated with cor- don or area pricing: transponder-based ETC systems and camera-based character recognition 52 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 4The presence of comprehensive rail and bus transit networks is essential for any metropolitan region considering the use of cordon or area pricing.

systems. In certain cases, one or the other technology may be used exclusively, and in others, the system may use both. Operating costs for character recognition systems are likely to be higher than those of transponder-based systems, but it is possible that pricing schemes could charge dif- ferent rates for entering the pricing zone, depending on which technology is used. Camera-based technologies are also more likely to raise privacy concerns. Performance monitoring programs for cordon or area pricing schemes may need to be developed to track and compare the perfor- mance of these different toll collection technologies in terms of accuracy, reliability, cost, and public perception. Cordon Versus Area Pricing There are two approaches for collecting entry fees with cordon and area pricing programs. The first is the cordon approach where motorists are charged a fee each time they enter the pricing zone, regardless of the number of trips made. This model is used in Singapore. The other approach is to charge motorists a single fee to enter the pricing zone on multiple occasions during a des- ignated period, such as 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, as is the case in London. The back office accounting programs used to operate cordon and area charging schemes need to be capable of making these distinctions, and it is likely that performance monitoring programs will also need to be capable of tracking the net number of trips made by individual vehicles of different types (e.g., private versus commercial) on a daily basis in order to gain a full under- standing of the ways in which the charging schemes affect different types of motorists. Fixed Versus Variable Price Rates As these guidelines are being written, two of the three major cordon or area pricing schemes—Stockholm and Singapore—vary their rates by time of day on a fixed schedule. It is possible that, in the future, new cordon or area pricing schemes could vary entry fees in real time based on actual travel conditions, with higher rates charged during periods of higher congestion. The rationale for using variably priced fees is to use higher toll rates as a further incentive to encourage motorists to make trips by alternative modes or during non-peak periods. Perfor- mance monitoring programs for cordon or area pricing programs using variable rates need to be capable of demonstrating the effects of changing toll rates on travel behavior. Regardless of the structure of the entry fee, performance monitoring programs for all cordon and area pricing programs should also be capable of tracking travel conditions by time of day—including those days and periods where no charge is levied—in order to provide a full understanding of how pricing influences travel patterns. Intra-Area Charges In some cases, cordon and area pricing programs may involve levying a fee for vehicular trips made entirely within the pricing zone in addition to those that originate outside the zone. In sit- uations where cordon or area pricing programs levy different fees for different types of trips (or trips made by residents who live in or next to the priced zone), performance monitoring pro- grams need to be able to track the number of trips for each of the different fee structures and enable analysts to assess how these different fee policies influence overall travel behavior. Geographic-Specific Concerns In certain cases, the implementation of cordon or area pricing can result in comparatively severe effects on residents in certain geographic areas. This is the case in Stockholm, for instance, for people living on the island of Lindingö, for which the only road access involves traveling through the pricing zone in the City of Stockholm. Given that there are no alternative routes for local residents and their visitors to use, trips to and from Lindingö are free, provided vehicles enter or exit the pricing zone within 30 minutes of arriving or departing from the island. In cases where there are certain locations where local residents are provided with equity-based discounts, Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 53

performance monitoring programs should be able to provide separate data tracking the effects of the charging scheme on populations who qualify for these types of discounts in order to understand how they affect local travel patterns and the extent to which local residents find the discounted fees fair and acceptable. Level of Public Interest Perhaps to a greater degree than other forms of congestion pricing, the level of public interest in cordon or area pricing schemes can be expected to be extremely high. Performance monitor- ing programs for these schemes should (1) provide comprehensive information on all the ben- efits of congestion pricing and (2) be tailored to address specific areas of public concern. As a result of the regional nature of their effects, as well as the potential for meaningful improvements in congestion levels and regional emissions and the heightened level of interest and concern, per- formance monitoring programs for cordon and area pricing schemes should be robust and com- prehensive in order to demonstrate their multitude of potential effects on the region and to gain support for them. 3.4.2 Selection of Performance Measures for Cordon and Area Pricing Programs This section provides specific factors for consideration, summaries of experience, and recom- mendations on the selection of performance measures for cordon or area pricing schemes. The section’s organization follows the order of the eight areas of evaluation identified earlier in the study. Evaluation areas are tied directly to the goals of a project. Specific project goals can be for- mulated and measured within the context of the evaluation areas. These evaluation areas and the full set of identified performance measures were introduced in Table 3-1 in Section 3.1.5. The number of operational cordon or area pricing schemes is limited in practice. All are cur- rently located outside the United States, and the three most extensive ones (as measured by geo- graphic extent and population served) were selected for close examination as part of the research behind these guidelines. The number of distinct performance measures captured within each evaluation area is shown in Table 3-11, along with those measures used by the schemes studied. Because of this limited subset, it is more difficult to conclusively extract performance measures most commonly used in practice to a set of general guidelines than in the case of variably priced managed lanes. These Guidelines’ recommendations take this into account and also draw from the authors’ experience with the attempted implementation of cordon pricing in New York City and other industry knowledge. The full spectrum of performance measures used in practice by at least two of the three area or cordon pricing schemes examined is shown in Table 3-12. As with the performance measures identified for variably priced managed lanes and variably priced toll facilities, the table also identifies whether the measures are generally applied in an operations or validation capacity, 54 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Total Measures Identified Measures Used by 2+ out of 3 Schemes Measures Used by 1 out of 3 Schemes Traffic Performance 20 7 9 Public Perception 15 1 3 Facility Users 14 3 1 System Operations 15 3 8 Environment 3 2 1 Transit 7 3 3 Economics 9 3 6 Land Use 2 0 2 Table 3-11. Total performance measures by evaluation area.

and whether they play a key (primary) or secondary role in a typical performance evaluation program. In the case of area and cordon pricing programs, however, the distinction between operations and validation is less significant than for the other two forms of congestion pricing. Scheme sponsors may choose to use any particular performance measure in either an operations or val- idation capacity, given the complexity of these programs’ implementation and the high level of public scrutiny they assuredly will undergo. That is, any one measure may inform an operational change on an ad hoc or systematic basis, and similarly, any one measure may help to communi- cate to users and observers a scheme’s successful (or unsuccessful) achievement of goals and pre- dicted benefits. Nonetheless, several performance measures (specific to Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing program) are indicated to be used in an operations capacity because they feed directly into an established periodic review of scheme function; if certain thresholds or charac- teristics are observed, adjustments to toll rates or an expansion of the priced zone can be trig- gered. It can be assumed that the potential application of dynamically variable area or cordon charges would require the selection of operations-based performance measures as real-time inputs to a pricing algorithm. In addition to the measures in Table 3-12, many other performance measures are used by one of the three facilities, 33 measures in total, as indicated in Table 3-11. These measures are listed in Table 3-13. Again, given the wide variety of special considerations necessary for suc- cessful implementation and sustained operation of an area or cordon pricing program, these measures are also presented (without Purpose or Importance distinctions) because any one per- formance measure may be critical for project sponsors to use. Generally though, those mea- sures captured in at least two of the three examined schemes are detailed further in the sections that follow. Nonetheless, as with the other two forms of pricing, because of the limited sample size of existing programs, as well as the specialized nature of these schemes, other performance measures Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 55 Evaluation Area Total No. of Measures Used Operations Validation Key Secondary Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Traffic Performance Speed & Travel Time Travel times 1 Speed & Travel Time Speeds/ average speed 2 2 2 2 2 Volume Vehicle volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) VMT/VKT VMT/ VKT 1 Congestion Delay/ wait times Mode Share Mode share (SOV, HOV, transit) 2 1 Bike/Ped Bike/ped traffic counts Public Perception Social Impacts Specific activities/populations 2 2 1 1 Facility Users Trip Characteristics O-D/ travelshed determination 1 1 2 Facility Users User Characteristics Vehicle classification 2 2 2 1 1 Facility Users Trip Characteristics Trip purpose System Operations System Operations System Operations Finance Revenue (toll/ charge) Finance O&M Cost 2 2 Safety Collisions/ accidents Environment Air Quality NAAQS criteria pollutants/ VOCs 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 Environment Air Quality GHG/ CO2 Transit Performance Travel time/on-time/excess wait 2 1 Transit Performance Average speed 2 1 Transit Occupancy Ridership/ boardings 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Economics General Benefit-cost analysis Economics Business Impacts General performance/openings/closings Economics Business Impacts Retail traffic & sales Purpose (No. of Measures) Importance (No. of Measures) Performance Measures 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Table 3-12. Performance measures in practice—cordon and area pricing (2+ out of 3 schemes examined).

not listed in Table 3-12 or Table 3-13 could be significant or necessary to collect, based on the goals set for a particular area or cordon pricing scheme. These measures may not have been cap- tured by these guidelines’ research; however, the issues discussed for each evaluation area can be applicable to those performance measures not identified. Traffic Performance Traffic performance describes the fundamental purpose of a roadway network: its ability to provide mobility to people and goods. An important distinction among cordon and area pric- ing programs compared to variably priced managed lanes or toll facilities is the greater empha- sis placed on including transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians among the users of the roadway net- work and measuring “traffic” performance for these modes. In general, traffic performance is measured by various traffic engineering measures answering the how much/many?, how fast?, and by what mode? questions pertaining to the roadway network. 56 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Evaluation Area Speed & Travel Time LOS Speed & Travel Time Travel time savings Speed & Travel Time Cost of delay/ VOT Volume Person volume (hourly/daily/weekly/monthly) Congestion Congestion coefficient Occupancy Avg. vehicle occupancy (auto) Parking Park-n-ride activity (lot counts) Parking Off-street parking activity (counts/occupancy) Parking On-street parking activity (counts/occupancy) Awareness Of the facility/general/how much? Acceptance General/fairness/equity Effectiveness Congestion reduction Facility Users Trip Characteristics Trip length Finance Total transactions Finance Average toll/ highest toll Finance Revenue (fee) Enforcement Violations/citations/fines Customer Service Inquiry activity (call, email) Customer Service Performance (quantitative measures) System Function Facility availability System Function Equipment availability Environment Noise Noise levels Occupancy Average vehicle occupancy Finance Farebox revenue Service Quality/satisfaction/reliability General Gross regional product/ economic indices Business Impacts Specific sectors/services/populations Business Impacts Business costs and prices Business Impacts Tourists/ visitors Property Residential sales/rentals/values Property Commercial sales/rentals/values Residential Housing decisions Commercial Business locations Transit Economics Land Use Performance Measures Traffic Performance Public Perception System Operations Table 3-13. Performance measures in practice—cordon and area pricing (1 out of 3 schemes examined).

Representative Traffic Performance Goals. Primary goals of area or cordon pricing pro- grams involve traffic performance. Achieving congestion reduction in a city center or central busi- ness district (as well as its surrounding areas and routes into it) is one prominent example. This goal, in turn though, may be further characterized on a more “measurable” basis or within a con- text that better resonates with users or those interested in improved performance. To that end, the goal of reducing congestion could more specifically be stated as reducing the volume or extent of peak-period congestion, improving vehicular access (specific to commuters or goods and service providers), or improving travel time reliability into the priced zone. Accomplishing this goal may require a shift in travel time to less congested periods, a shift to an alternate mode (e.g., transit, bicycling, or walking), or not making the trip at all. As with variably priced managed lanes and toll facilities, goals related to reliability can be subjective and dependent on location-specific contexts. Further specification by project sponsors may be required. What Are the Traffic Performance Measures? Measures of traffic, as indicated in Table 3-1, include vehicle and person volumes, speeds and travel times, mode share and vehicle occupan- cies, vehicle miles traveled, and indicators of congestion, such as delay, queue lengths, and spe- cially developed coefficients comparing specific metrics during congested and uncongested con- ditions. Other measures that incorporate traffic include bicycle and pedestrian measures and parking, potentially significant considerations for area or cordon pricing schemes. Transit performance, closely tracked with these programs, is captured in its own evaluation area. Nearly all the metrics captured in the research for these guidelines have been applied to mea- sure traffic performance, indicating a broad range that may offer project sponsor utility. Research has shown that key performance measures of traffic for area and cordon pricing depend signif- icantly on scheme context. The extent of the scheme’s physical coverage, existing roadway con- figuration, policy and method for charging a fee, and many other issues can all affect the impor- tance attached to particular traffic performance measures. In one example, the priced zone may contain a mixture of low-speed city streets, arterials, bridges, tunnels, and highways, unlike vari- ably priced managed lanes or toll facilities, which are uniform road type. How Are Traffic Performance Measures Applied? Volumes. As with variably priced managed lanes and toll facilities, traffic volumes are criti- cal to understanding system usage (the system in this case being both the priced zone itself and the surrounding region that may be directly or indirectly affected). Typically these volumes would be measured at the cordons (boundary) of the priced zone, effectively measuring the total volume of “system” users inside the zone. Volumes are also likely to be measured at any num- ber of other critical locations both inside and outside the priced zone to assess the scheme’s effect on particular roads or corridors of interest, especially those known to be highly congested and targeted for relief. These are likely to be the most heavily traveled routes that lead to the priced zone. Shifting traffic volumes and patterns are also likely to occur because of users seeking alternate routes to avoid the charge or parking near the boundary to take an available alternate mode, such as transit, into the zone. Volumes can be measured using system equipment installed at the zone’s cordons, existing loop detector or camera infrastructure, or through manual counts where these options may not be available, such as streets near the zone boundary that may see a spike in traffic from those avoiding passing into the zone. Speeds/Travel Times/Delay. Traffic speeds measured along specified corridors or averaged within specified zones help inform common traffic performance goals, as do travel times along defined routes or from identified origins and destinations. Speeds and travel times often are used to indicate reliability for journeys into the priced zone. A similar metric that represents speed and travel time in a reciprocal fashion is delay. The difference between actual speeds and travel times compared with a baseline accepted speed or travel time represents delay. Reduced delay Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 57

can indicate improved traffic performance. Speeds along a sin- gle corridor or crossing the zone’s cordons can be calculated using system equipment (ETC transponder equipment and/or cameras); otherwise a probe vehicle or other proxy equipped with GPS (such as taxis) would be required to capture average speeds across more complicated networks or within a defined zone. Vehicle Miles Traveled. Given a need to aggregate traffic performance across an often extensive roadway network, rather than just single lanes or corridors, vehicle miles traveled provides another means to measure traffic performance. VMT requires calculated estimates from other traffic data, such as volumes or extrapolations from volunteer vehicles outfitted with GPS. Other Modes. Encouraging the use of alternative modes to access the priced zone is a primary goal measured through traf- fic performance. In this respect, transit usage (as noted in the Transit evaluation area) as well as pedestrian and bicyclist counts measured at the zone’s cordons can be applied. Parking. Although captured for only one priced zone, on- and off-street public parking counts can provide a good secondary indication of improved traffic performance. Research has shown that a significant percentage of traffic volume in city centers is caused by people searching for parking. This means that not only does parking volume provide an indication of reduced traffic volume as a whole, but it can help provide an indication of fur- ther congestion reduction resulting from increased ease in obtaining parking. Outside the priced zone, parking counts are of interest to measure the extent to which users are avoiding entry into the zone by simply parking outside it. This information can help identify areas for cordon adjustment or the need for policies to avoid oversubscribing parking (and potentially roadway capacity) near the zone’s boundary. Public Perception Area and cordon pricing have been deployed in only a few select cities—none of which is in the United States as these guidelines are being developed. Because of their untested application in the United States and the dramatic effects these schemes can be expected to have on how mobility and accessibility are both perceived and managed, perhaps with more significance than any other evaluation area, obtaining public buy-in to implement an area or cordon pricing scheme will require positive public perception. The public’s knowledge of a program’s purpose and acceptance of it as a new paradigm for managing access to the selected priced zone are crit- ical to address prior to implementation. The roles of area and cordon pricing facilities before and after implementation, along with satisfaction with the service these schemes provide, are char- acterized qualitatively through public perception. Representative Public Perception Goals. Gauging public perception is at the heart of goals that seek to validate an area or cordon pricing project—both before and after implementation. Representative goals may include achieving acceptance or sustaining a prescribed level of satis- faction with the facility’s operation. Specific targets of the perception of the scheme’s effect on congestion reduction, equity, or social impacts within the priced zone can be established and tracked. In addition to its relation to public perception, the special case of equity is discussed in depth in Section 3.1.4. 58 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Example: Using Speeds to Adjust Pricing Policy The pricing policy for Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is reviewed on a 3-month cycle, tak- ing into account a wealth of collected data and computed traffic engineering metrics based on speeds. Speed-flow analyses are performed for all travel routes (expressways, major arterials, and minor arterials) to examine congestion levels relative to target LOS. This review duration is considered optimal to allow enough time for traffic patterns to readjust—passing through a transient period and accounting for altered driver behavior. A formal process is followed to make an adjustment to the ERP charge schedule. Approvals are required from the Minister of Transport, and the new rates are formalized through appropriate legal documents or law.

In general, measuring public perception is an attitudinal exercise that requires an appropri- ate instrument such as surveys, focus groups, or interviews. Clearly, public outreach becomes a prime factor in establishing these goals and measuring their achievement. A detailed discussion of integrating performance evaluation and public outreach, including means of collecting atti- tudinal information, is provided in Chapter 4 of these guidelines. Provided here are details of the most relevant performance measures for capturing and quantifying public perception. What Are the Public Perception Measures? Public perception measures (as itemized in Table 3-1) focus on awareness, acceptance, and satisfaction. Among all three of these measures, specificity can range from the very broad to the more explicit. For example, awareness of a scheme’s features (e.g., hours of operation, extent, and exceptions to the charge), planned charge adjustments, or future cordon expansion can be queried. Similarly, acceptance and satisfaction measures can be general or specific. One additional public perception measure found uniquely among area and cordon pricing pro- grams relates to gauging a scheme’s effects on specific activities or populations. Activities could be industry, commercial, or tourist, for example, while particular populations could include the elderly, schoolchildren, or specific types of workers. It is somewhat surprising that this public per- ception measure was the only one found to be common among at least two of the three schemes examined for these guidelines’ research. However, this finding may be more of an indication of how public perception measures must be specifically tailored to each program’s application rather than a lack of applicability, leading to unique sets of measures for any one particular scheme. Additionally, sponsors’ performance monitoring programs often focus on the results of post-scheme implementation and report less on their proposed implementation, resulting in a smaller number of public perception measures employed than expected. What is most difficult about gauging public perception, however, is that there are no “loop detectors” for measuring it. That is, to make measurements that are inherently qualitative or sub- jective, a different set of tools is required, those that capture attitudes, as detailed in Chapter 4. In addition, many measures are stakeholder group-specific and must be tailored to a specific issue of significance. How Are Public Perception Measures Applied? All public perception measures can be characterized as serving a valida- tion capacity, but could very well lead to operational decisions as well, including significant modifications to a scheme’s extent (see the associated Example). A sponsor contemplating the implementation of an area or cordon pricing scheme may view certain public perception measures as key to the facility’s per- formance evaluation program if, for example, a particular issue, such as user equity, is expected to be highly visible. Addition- ally, results of public perception measures may dictate necessary changes to customer service functions or public communica- tion policies. Survey instruments, focus groups, or interviews are generally used to collect data for public perception measures. Generally speaking, these measures are more demanding and costly to collect and synthesize because of the user-specific, manual col- lection process required of attitudinal information. Because of this, their collection is often done on either a “before-and-after” or periodic basis. Surveyed public perceptions can be collected prior to the start of an area or cordon pricing program, either Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 59 Example: Public Perception Leads to Significant Operational Changes A major proposed change to London’s Conges- tion Charge in 2010 was the elimination of the Western Extension, which had effectively dou- bled the original Central London charging zone when added in 2007. The proposed retraction was initiated by Mayor Boris Johnson, elected in 2008, and a public vote/survey was used to inform the decision. Public perception of effects to the local economy and the zone’s residents were the impetus for the operational change— despite measurable reductions in traffic, increased use of alternative transportation modes, and improvements to the environment.

once or in several waves, and compared with similar results after implementation. Once opera- tional, it may be desirable to continue to collect these types of measures on a periodic basis, such as annually or biannually, or as resources allow. Before-and-after surveys may focus on more mar- ket research, acceptance, and awareness issues, while periodic, post-opening-day performance measurement will likely focus on user satisfaction. What is important to keep in mind when formulating measures of public perception is that they should address issues of public concern identified through a public outreach process. Given that no two cities’ geographies, populations, transportation infrastructure, politics, and a host of other issues are the same, the key issues worth tracking and responding to before, during, and after project implementation are certainly more unique than alike. Public perception measures should be tailored appropriately to each project application. Facility Users The term facility users refers to other characteristics of those who make trips into, within, and out of the area or cordon pricing zone and the characteristics of the trips themselves. (For con- sistency with the other two forms of pricing, the term facility is retained, but in actuality a priced zone is not a facility per se.) Representative Facility User Goals. Understanding who are the users of a facility—users of the priced zone—is critical to gaining acceptance of an area or cordon pricing program and ensuring its fair and successful deployment. One primary goal may be to identify and mitigate negative equity change for those who may be disadvantaged by the introduction of the priced zone—for example, lower income commuters who drive into the priced zone for work and have few travel alternatives available (the special case of social equity is further discussed in Section 3.1.4). Goals may also be established for trip users’ trip purposes such as a reduction in discre- tionary trips to ease others given higher priority such as transit or goods movement. Character- istics of a facility’s users can be used as inputs to developing and measuring goals formulated under other evaluation subjects. For example, users’ departure times, trip times-of-day, or ori- gins/destinations can inform decisions on setting charging policies, which can be tied to goals of congestion reduction or revenue generation. What Are the Facility User Measures? Measures of facility users primarily focus on char- acteristics of the users themselves or the trips they take. Specific data on their accounts or charge transaction type is also found among those measures used in practice. The full list derived from current operating schemes is shown in Table 3-1. User characteristics include demo- graphic and socioeconomic data, vehicle data, and home zip code or other residence-identify- ing measures. Trip characteristics include, among others, frequency, departure times, trav- elshed determinations, overall trip length, and trip purpose. How Are Facility User Measures Applied? Measures of a facility’s (priced zone’s) users are made in a combined validation and operations capacity early in the implementation and initial evaluation period of area or cordon pricing programs. As these schemes become more common, facility user data is likely to become less significant and may only be necessary to measure on either an infrequent basis or when a significant change in operation has occurred. As a cordon or area pricing program is considered and initially becomes operational, capturing the characteristics of its users (or non-users if the priced zone is avoided) such as socioeconomic and demographic char- acteristics is important in understanding if detrimental or inequitable effects are occurring to cer- tain groups. Operational or policy changes may be warranted to correct such findings. For exam- ple, physical adjustment to the priced zone’s boundary or special accommodation (e.g., rebates, discounts, or exemptions) to disadvantaged user groups may need to be introduced. 60 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects

Of special significance to area or cordon pricing scheme sponsors is an understanding of the characteristics of users’ trips. This information can validate whether the scheme is having the desired effect on managing trips into the priced zone—where the trips originate and conclude, how long they are, and for what purpose they are taken, as with user characteristics, can lead to operational or charging policy adjustments. Collection methods and frequencies vary for user measures. Some measures, such as basic demographic data or vehicle classification (e.g., automobile, taxi, small truck, large truck, and public service vehicle), can be tracked through a customer registration/management process, if used by the scheme. The level of data available will depend on the technology used for the scheme. Many user measures can be obtained only through survey work, such as socioeconomic data and trip characteristics (e.g., trip length and purpose). Collection of such data is naturally done on an infrequent, as-needed basis. Comprehensive travelshed determinations may even require travel demand forecasting or modeling efforts. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 61 Performance Data in Stockholm Underpins a Successful Referendum Stockholm became the second major urban area in Europe to implement congestion pricing with the permanent implementation of the Stockholm Congestion Tax on August 1, 2007. The decision to implement the system per- manently was based on the outcome of local consultative referenda held in Stockholm and several surrounding municipalities on September 17, 2006. City residents approved the congestion tax by a margin of 51.3 percent. Local transportation planners in Stockholm credit this positive outcome to the extensive performance monitor- ing effort associated with a 7-month trial of the congestion tax from January 3 to July 31, 2006. The prospect of a new and controversial tax, coupled with complicated legal and privacy issues, was cause for sharp political debate in the Swedish capital. Local polls showed that support for the tax was lowest right before the start of the trial period. However, support increased rapidly once the positive effects of the charg- ing scheme became visible. In preparation for the trial, the Swedish government established a Congestion Charge Secretariat to plan, coordi- nate, and evaluate the outcome and communicate with the public. As part of its work the Secretariat established performance goals for the program together with a comprehensive evaluation program to assess the extent to which the goals would be achieved. The Secretariat’s key findings from the trial included the following: • Decrease in traffic volumes of 22% at the cordon during charging hours (half from commuters who shifted from driving to public transport, and half from consolidation, reduction, or new destinations for discretionary trips) • Reduction in peak-period delays of 33% on arterials leading into the city • Public transport ridership increase of 6% • Reduction of vehicle emissions in the inner city of 8 to 14% • Marginal effect on trade and commerce Overall, the Secretariat concluded that the goals for the trial were met, with an even greater-than-expected reduction in congestion, improved levels of CO2 and particulates, and an improved city environment. The Secretariat’s comprehensive monitoring program was critical to validating the success of the trial and con- veying the benefits of congestion pricing to voters in Stockholm. The decision to hold the trial and institute rig- orous performance monitoring turned out to be a tactical success, without which transportation officials in Sweden do not believe it would have been possible to gain the needed approvals to make the congestion tax permanent. On a related note, officials involved with the failed campaigns to implement congestion pricing programs in Manchester and Edinburgh agree that the unsuccessful outcomes of referenda in those cities— 82% voted against congestion pricing in Manchester—might have been different if similar trial and monitoring programs had been implemented prior to the vote.

System Operations For these Guidelines, system operations refer to operational aspects of a priced zone that are not directly related to measures of traffic, as discussed in the Traffic Performance section. They are categorized in five ways: • Finance • Enforcement • Safety • Customer service • System function Representative System Operations Goals. A wide variety of goals can be set by and evaluated against system operations. A significant system operations goal is to collect a certain level of revenue, most likely to recoup the initial investment in establishing the scheme and to cover operating costs, but also potentially to improve or subsidize other travel options, such as transit. Safety is also an important goal for all transportation infrastructure. Finally, priced zone sponsors may want to achieve established levels of customer service or targets of system equipment availability/accuracy. What Are the System Operations Measures? Because of system operations’ broad scope, a wide variety of measures are used to track this evaluation area as detailed in Table 3-1. Finance measures include revenue (e.g., charges and fees) and expenditures (O&M). Enforcement mea- sures track data that includes violation data, fines, and penalties. Measures of safety often look at accident rates. A long and very detailed number of performance metrics can measure customer service—from volumes of inquiry and comments received (positive or negative) to customer service center response time and average inquiry resolution time. Application of these measures is highly dependent on facility sponsor preference, as discussed below. Finally, measures of sys- tem function focus on system and specific equipment availability and accuracy, numbers of equipment incidents, and repair rates. Research for these guidelines has shown that finance and safety are the two most prominent types of system operations measures used for area or cordon pricing schemes. Customer service and system function are also significant, although tracked by only one of the three schemes examined. How Are System Operations Measures Applied? Finance. Among the five categories of system operations performance measures, financial performance data feature the most prominently. In analyzing revenue collection targets and trends, total revenue and O&M costs were collected by two of the three schemes examined (and are certainly collected for the third, but not publicly available). The ability for priced zone programs to (1) cover their operating costs and (2) repay their initial capital costs is a significant consideration for project sponsors because of the high level of resistance that can be expected when implementing these schemes. The use of signif- icant public subsidies will only detract from their acceptance. However, existing experience indicates that the level of charge necessary to have the desired (significant) effect on traffic reduction should yield revenue that will cover ongoing operat- ing costs and result in a surplus. (London’ and Stockholm’s pricing schemes yield net revenues that exceed operating costs by a factor of two to three.) Excess revenue can be reinvested to improve alternate modes of transportation and/or the existing 62 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Example: Revenue Usage in Stockholm In 2008, revenue from Stockholm’s congestion tax was approximately 850 million kroner, inclusive of the tax, administrative and late payment fees, and enforcement revenues. Operational costs amounted to about 393 million kroner, although this included several one-time charges. Estimated operational costs in 2010 and beyond were approximately 250 million kroner. Net revenues from the permanent charge (estimated to be 600 million kroner per year starting in 2010) have been reinvested in the Stockholm region’s road network, unlike during the congestion tax’s trial period when net revenues were invested in improving public transportation.

roadway network within and around the priced zone. Such improvements are likely necessary both to absorb and attract users who switch modes (especially to transit) and to further bolster public acceptance for the scheme by transparently reinvesting the money collected, rather than having it appear to be “just another tax.” For pricing schemes with a variable charge rate struc- ture, the average charge paid, highest charge paid, and total number of transactions are of inter- est to sponsors who look to manage the revenue collected. Collection of toll revenue data is managed through ETC equipment and does not represent a significant cost once a facility is operational. The data is captured on an ongoing, real-time basis and can be considered a must-have among performance evaluation measures. Enforcement. Enforcement of charge payment requirements is an important measure to pre- sent to a public that expects a high level of integrity for a service that requires payment for use. Measures of enforcement such as violation rates and volume and revenue from penalties assessed are relevant in this case and help to (1) validate the expectation of fair application of the facil- ity’s rules and requirements and (2) inform the sponsor how effective their enforcement prac- tices are. Enforcement will likely take the form of a camera-based system to photograph license plates of those without a valid transponder, or, if a license plate reader system is used (as in Lon- don and Stockholm) to identify vehicles for which the charge is assessed, a bill is generated post- trip, with the option to charge a higher rate if not paid in advance. Safety. Measuring safety is an important means to validate the benefits of area or cordon pric- ing. Reductions in vehicle collisions as well as reductions in accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists can be tracked before and after scheme implementation. A reduction in traffic volume inside the priced zone should affect safety conditions positively. Customer Service. Confirmation of delivering high-quality customer service can be evaluated by many measures—such as levels of customer inquiry (by phone or email) and quantitative cus- tomer service measures (e.g., inquiry answer time and resolution time). Scheme sponsors will want to consider tailoring a selection of these measures, based on the role the agency plays in providing customer service functions, public outreach outcomes, and other needs. If a private entity collects the charges and manages customer service, evaluation measures and reporting requirements can be specified in the contract. System Function. Validating the proper function of the priced zone’s system equipment (and any need for potential operational changes) can require certain performance evaluation mea- sures. Drawing from other forms of congestion pricing along with the findings for area or cor- don pricing, applied measures could include system equipment availability (e.g., transponder or license plate readers, cameras, and other vehicle detection and monitoring equipment), the num- ber of system incidents (e.g., failures and errors), and the mean time to repair the result of the incident. Collection of these measures can be built into the software that manages the systems and reports produced as necessary. Environment Environment refers to aspects of the natural environment, such as air quality and noise, which can be affected by transportation infrastructure. The “urban” environment, as may be evaluated based on quality of life, is not explicitly included in this evaluation area. Measuring improve- ments in the urban environment or quality of life is imprecise and depends on specific factors of interest to scheme sponsors, stakeholders, and the public. Measures of improvement are cap- tured across several evaluation areas, including the (natural) environment, traffic performance, public perception, and economics. Representative Environmental Goals. Area and cordon pricing schemes expected to result in significant reductions in urban traffic levels often are accompanied by similarly aggressive Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 63

environmental goals. Targeted reductions in National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria pollutants (e.g., NOx, CO, and particulates), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), green- house gases (GHGs), and CO2 are primary goals. Reductions in ambient noise levels are others. What Are the Environmental Measures? Measures of the identified pollutants and noise levels are the environmental measures included in evaluation programs for area and cordon pric- ing programs. How Are Environmental Measures Applied? Calculating changes in air quality requires using traffic performance data, including traffic volumes and speeds, as inputs to air quality forecasting tools, such as EPA’s MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software. Air quality monitoring stations may already exist in the locations to be analyzed and should be incorpo- rated into the scheme’s performance evaluation program. Additional equipment can be deployed as needed. Measuring air quality may require coordination with local, state, or fed- eral environmental agencies. Reduction in noise requires deployment of targeted sound level measurement equipment in areas of concern; collected data can be compared with data before scheme implementation. Transit Transit refers to aspects of transit service that operate within the same region as the area or cordon pricing zone, especially services that provide access to the zone itself. Both bus and rail service are considered as alternate modes of travel to access the priced zone. Representative Transit Goals. Goals related to transit service are of primary concern to priced zone scheme sponsors because having alternate modes available is essential for successful implementation. Increased ridership, a primary goal, is indicative of a successful mode shift from personal vehicles entering the priced zone. Related goals focus on improving specific aspects of service—frequency, timeliness, areas served, quality, and subjective indicators of customer satisfaction. What Are the Transit Measures? Aspects of transit ser- vice include performance, ridership, finance (revenue), and quality of service (as measured attitudinally through customer surveys). Research indicates that transit performance was measured in two of the three schemes by examining travel times, on-time rates, or excess wait times (delay); average speeds; and ridership or boarding counts. Average vehicle occupancy; farebox revenue; and quality, satisfaction, and reliability as perceived by customers were also employed by at least one pricing program. That more comprehensive metrics are used for priced zones than for variably priced managed lane or toll facilities indicates the greater role transit plays in successfully operating these schemes and the importance of documenting the results. How Are Transit Measures Applied? If the sponsor of the area or cordon pricing scheme also operates the region’s tran- sit service, acquiring transit performance data is not difficult. Otherwise such data needs to be acquired (if such data exists) from individual transit agencies. Obtaining the performance data sought, however, requires establishing a good working relation- ship with that agency and coordinating data collection efforts. 64 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Example: Promoting Consideration for Transit Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (LTA) is responsible for the country’s roads and public transportation systems, including heavy and light rail, buses, and taxis. One main goal of its Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) program is to encourage commuters to choose the most appropriate transportation mode. ERP opti- mizes the use of the city-state’s constrained road capacity and strongly incentivizes public transportation, which has benefited from signif- icant investments in parallel with 35 years of cordon pricing. LTA has set a target of making 70 percent of all morning peak-hour trips on public transport by 2020. Transit travel times from location benchmarks throughout Singa- pore have been established and are used to monitor the reliability of service.

Economics Economics refers to a broad range of economic indicators and trends within the region affected by an area or cordon pricing program. Equally, economics may include macro-level quantifi- cations of economic health as well as individual examinations of effects to particular economic sectors (e.g., specific businesses or urban activities). Representative Economics Goals. Unlike with variably priced managed lane or toll facili- ties, economics is likely to be an important consideration for area or cordon pricing projects because the expected significant reduction of vehicular traffic within the zone could have a mea- sured impact, perceived or otherwise, on economic activity—both at a macro scale and individ- ually on certain sectors. Goals may include (1) having no net loss in economic activity or no adverse effect on particular services and (2) an increase in economic activity because of improved access, mobility, or the desirability of operating a business or conducting commerce in the zone because of the improved urban environment. What Are the Economics Measures? Economics measures are shown in Table 3-12 and Table 3-13. Economic impacts at the macro level are measured by gross regional product or other economic indices that quantify activity in the priced zone’s region at an aggregate scale. Specific economic impacts focus on businesses and property. General business performance of commercial establishments, most easily captured through openings and closings, was found in two of the three schemes examined. Measures of retail patronage and sales were also quanti- fied. Other measures employed in the case of one scheme include a qualitative service-by-service analysis of specific business sectors or worker populations, measures of business costs and prices, and impacts to tourists. Property impact measures include residential and commercial values, as well as sales and rental volumes. Finally, unlike the findings from the other two forms of congestion pricing, research indicates that area and cordon pricing have lent themselves to performing benefit-cost analyses. This result may be indicative of the greater economic impact these schemes can have, as well as need to further justify instituting such a marked change to managing traffic within a region. It may also highlight the traditional lack of applying benefit-cost analyses to transportation improve- ment projects in the United States. How Are Economics Measures Applied? Applying and analyzing economic impact mea- sures will require quantification of baseline economic activity level before scheme implementa- tion, as well as control factors for other external impacts to the economy to attribute economic impacts to the introduction of a priced zone definitively. Obtaining measures of economic activ- ity may rely on data collected by a city’s economic development organizations, departments of revenue, and others. Specially designed surveys will be needed to target particular economic sec- tors, businesses, or populations in order to focus on the effects of the pricing program. Economic modeling can also be performed as a substitute or complement to selected quantitative findings. Land Use Performance measures to evaluate a priced zone’s impacts on land have been used by one of the three schemes examined. Tracking patterns of residential and commercial development may be of interest to program sponsors. However, the results of such tracking would be a long-term outcome, because land use patterns would require significant periods of adjustment before mea- surable results could be achieved. Guidelines for Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects 65

Next: Chapter 4 - Integrating Performance Evaluation and Measurement with Public Outreach »
Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 694: Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects is designed to help transportation agencies select or develop measures to evaluate congestion-pricing projects; collect the necessary data; track performance; and communicate the results to decision makers, users, and the general public.

A companion document to NCHRP Report 694 was published as NCHRP Web-Only Document 174: Performance Measurement and Evaluation of Tolling and Congestion Pricing Projects, which provides an overview of the purpose, scope, and methodology, and a complete compilation of the work products that were used to develop NCHRP Report 694.

The PDF of this report has some information not supplied in the original print version. Be advised that inclusion of this information has affected the layout of Appendix A and may affect printing.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!