Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 66
CHAPTER 4
Integrating Performance
Evaluation and Measurement
with Public Outreach
To date, interest in performance measures for facilities with congestion pricing has been
relegated to technical discussion between planners and engineers tasked with developing these
facilities. From a public education perspective, this is unfortunate because it is often decisions
made on individual performance element thresholds that ultimately will drive positive (or nega-
tive) public opinion on a project. For example, the top two reasons why a customer will consider
using a congestion-priced facility--travel-time savings and trip reliability--are performance
based. For the public projects operating or being considered, key performance targets are often
prescribed by the major funding proponent, FHWA. For example, a mandate of maintaining an
average travel speed of 45 mph at least 90 percent of the time on high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes and priced high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes is a common FHWA-established threshold
performance standard that drives many supporting operating decisions.
In the case of the conversion of an HOV facility to HOT operation, it may be necessary to
make radical changes to the existing operations in order to meet the 45-mph speed mandate fol-
lowing the conversion. Changes may involve charging users who previously had no-toll access
to the managed lanes, altering or closing some restricted lane access or exit locations, and/or
requiring transponders or registration for users who used to be able to make a spontaneous
choice to use the facility. These types of changes all affect the public's positive perceptions of
congestion-priced facilities as an acceptable travel option. In addition, congestion pricing
involves the exchange of "money for service," which introduces associated expectations about
how much money will be collected, who gets to keep it, and how it will be spent. In the face of
public acceptance challenges, documenting the benefits of congestion pricing is vital to securing
public support.
4.1 Advantages and Drawbacks of Including
Performance Measures in the Public Outreach
Process and How Existing Facility Characteristics
Shape a Future Facility Vision
Using performance measures as a basis for decisions about congestion-priced facility operations
can have three major benefits in the public affairs arena:
· Performance monitoring presents existing conditions scientifically. Presenting current, accu-
rate information on existing conditions to the public helps stakeholders to understand why
change is necessary. It is difficult to convince people to support a solution if they do not believe
there is a problem. For example, many HOV lanes experience periods of excessive demand, which
results in the same congestion these lanes are supposed to offer an alternative to--addressing this
66
OCR for page 67
Integrating Performance Evaluation and Measurement with Public Outreach 67
condition first means sharing information about why steps such as pricing need to be considered
to regain lost benefits.
· Performance monitoring establishes quantifiable benefits and tradeoffs resulting from
a congestion-priced facility. Sharing the anticipated performance of the congestion-priced
facility builds public trust and confidence. Performance metrics should demonstrate how trav-
elers, communities, businesses, and environmental and other special interests will be better
off as a result of the priced facility.
· Performance monitoring puts the focus on the project, not the personalities. Using exist-
ing and desired performance metrics as the blueprint for operational changes helps to ensure
a decision-making process separated from conflicting political and/or special interests. For
example, converting an existing HOV lane to a congestion-priced facility may cause dissat-
isfaction among current HOV customers who will no longer be able to use the facility with-
out paying a fee; however, maintaining free use or increasing occupancy requirements may
have quantifiable benefits to the corridor and region. HOV customers need to be persuaded
that a change in facility operations will be to their benefit. One method to achieve that out-
come is to acknowledge the poor existing performance of "their" lane/s and to share a vision
of what future travel can be like as evidenced by anticipated performance. Although a win-
win outcome may not be possible for all affected customers, an outcome that is both rational
and objective and founded on the region's adopted goals and objectives provides a good basis
for constituent support.
At the same time, using performance standards to support the need for change presents
some risks:
· Performance monitoring fosters closer scrutiny of individual performance standards and
outcomes. Sharing existing and anticipated performance means that such data is no longer
reserved for a select few or those "in the know." Extra care needs to be taken to ensure that
existing conditions data and anticipated performance information are adequately collected
from reliable sources, checked for accuracy, and vetted for review prior to release. To secure and
maintain the public's confidence, project officials need to be well versed in the details of how and
when existing condition information was gathered and how anticipated condition performance
measures are calculated.
· Performance monitoring increases pressure to prepare alternative actions in case desired
outcomes do not materialize. When there is transparency and full disclosure about future
facility expectations--as in the case of fully vetted performance measures--there is always the
increased pressure to have back-up strategies in place if anticipated results do not materialize
after the project has been implemented. Although some level of back-up plan should always
be prepared, there will likely be more public scrutiny of individual performance measures as
a result of increased prominence during the outreach and education process.
Although converting a roadway facility to a more restrictive use may technically be the most
straightforward and simple way to introduce pricing, it is a challenge from a public perspec-
tive. If the introduction of pricing has little effect or requires little change or action on the part
of the current facility users, then there will likely be relatively little resistance to the change.
However, as the change element--or action--increases, then the pushback or reaction will
likely increase as well. In the United States, almost all variably priced managed lane facilities
began their "restricted access lives" as HOV lanes, or at a minimum offered HOV preferential
access. With the exception of I-95 in Miami, existing HOV users were required to make rela-
tively minor changes to stay in compliance as a result of the introduction of pricing. Table 4-1
documents the changes in HOV policies that occurred with the introduction of variable pric-
ing on the seven HOT lane facilities for which case studies were prepared as part of this
research effort.
OCR for page 68
68 Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Projects
Table 4-1. Characteristics of HOV operations before and after HOT conversion.
Project HOV Operations Before Conversion HOV Operations After Conversion
I-25 Express Two-lane reversible facility No capacity added--conversion
Lanes 2+ HOVs and registered hybrids required operational changes only
Denver, CO allowed access No occupancy requirement changes
Motorcycles allowed access HOVs and hybrids not required to
Under 10% violation rate carry transponder but must use a
6-min bus headways from park-and- "declaration" lane at the toll gantry
ride lots mid-way down the project
Free motorcycle access continued
SOVs pay toll for access
No trucks allowed (same as before
conversion)
I-95 Express One-lane directional facility Added one new lane of capacity and
Lanes 2+ HOVs and hybrids allowed access converted existing HOV lane to
Miami, FL comprise the two-lane directional
As high as 80% violation rate
priced facility (4 lanes total)
Limited transit service
Only 3+ HOV with prior registration
may use priced lanes at no charge
SOV hybrid users must have a FL
State Decal and an I-95 Express decal
to use lane at no charge
SOVs, non-registered 3+ HOVs, non-
registered hybrids, and HOV2 pay toll
No trucks allowed (same as before
conversion)
I-10 "Katy Previous single-reversible HOV lane Built two new managed lanes in each
Freeway" operated with 3+ restriction in peak direction
Managed hours and 2+ outside the peak for 2+ HOV and motorcycles travel for
Lanes most of the daytime hours free 5-11 am and 2-8 pm. Required
Houston, TX to pay at all other times
HOVs not required to carry a
transponder but must enter the
facility through "declaration" lane
SOVs, hybrids, and small commercial
vehicles allowed access for toll
Minnesota 2+ HOV and motorcycles allowed I-394: No capacity added--conversion
"MnPass access required operational changes only
Lanes" I-394: Two-lane reversible and I-35W: Freeway modified and
I-394 single-lane directional facility reconstructed with new capacity
I-35W designated as priced lanes
I-35W: limited single directional
Minneapolis,
lanes 2+ HOV travel at no charge
MN
Significant transit service HOVs not required to carry
transponder
Free motorcycle access continued
Hybrids and SOVs allowed access for
toll
No trucks allowed
SR-91 Opened in 1995 as first privately Two-lane directional facility (4 lanes
Express funded tollroad built in US in 1940s. total)
Lanes Project did not exist as an HOV lane Limited ingress and egress points
Orange County, as it opened as a priced lane under only on each end
CA private ownership HOV3 motorists are typically allowed
Purchased by Orange County Transp. to use the facility free of charge, with
Authority in 2003 the exception of the p.m. peak period
Generally allowed 3+HOVs with from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. eastbound,
transponders free use when they are required to carry a
No trucks transponder and pay 50 percent of
the established toll
All other users pay toll via
transponder
Limited transit service
No trucks allowed
OCR for page 69
Integrating Performance Evaluation and Measurement with Public Outreach 69
Table 4-1. (Continued).
Project HOV Operations Before Conversion HOV Operations After Conversion
I-15 Express 2+ HOV, hybrids with HOV Access No capacity added initially
Lanes Clean Air decal and motorcycles conversion required operational
San Diego, CA allowed access changes only
8 mile 2-lane reversible facility No occupancy requirement changes
Limited access on each end All HOVs and hybrids with HOV
Limited transit service Access Clean Air decals are not
required to carry transponders
Free motorcycle access continued
SOVs pay toll for access
No trucks allowed
Project has since been expanded and
lengthened to a facility that can
operate as 3-1, 2-2 or 1-3 directional
configuration
SR-167 HOT 2+ HOVs and motorcycles allowed No capacity added conversion
Lanes access required operational changes only
Seattle, WA 11 mile single-lane directional facility No occupancy requirement changes
Only two adjacent general-purpose HOVs not required to carry
lanes in each direction transponders
Unlimited access locations to HOV Free motorcycle access continued
lane SOVs and hybrids pay toll for access
Limited transit service Access to HOT lane at designated
locations only
No trucks allowed
I-15 Express 2+ HOV, hybrids with decals Started with decal program to
Lanes and motorcycles allowed access registered SOVs willing to pay
Salt Lake City, $50/month for unlimited use,
Single directional lanes in both
UT transitioning to toll for SOVs with
directions
transponders
Unlimited access
No capacity added conversion
Limited transit service
required operational changes only
No occupancy requirement changes
All HOVs and hybrids are not required
to carry transponders
Free motorcycle access continued
SOVs pay toll for access
No trucks allowed
No transit service changes
As shown in Table 4-1, most HOV to HOT conversions have required very little change on the
part of the existing HOV customer. For the most part, access to new customer groups was added,
but not at the expense of removing benefits to existing HOV users. Future projects, however, will
likely require more significant operational changes in order to ensure operational benefits and
achieve financial objectives. Fewer and fewer HOV lanes have excess capacity to "sell," so a con-
version to a congestion-priced facility will require adding capacity and/or changing access require-
ments. Public education and outreach will become more important as the challenges facing HOV-
to-priced-lane conversion increase.
When considering the conversion of an existing free-of-charge facility to one where pricing is
an element for access, establishing and sharing "baseline" conditions is essential to beginning to
secure support for changes being considered. Public buy-in on the legitimacy and accuracy of
existing conditions is essential to the project's ability to garner support for change. Undertaking
market research activities, such as those described in Section 4.2, will document where public
opinion and reality intersect and where they diverge. Ongoing education and outreach activities
should focus on those areas of divergence.
