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 114
APPENDIX F
Interview Summaries Related to
Communication and Engagement
New York City: Variable Parking Charges
In New York, through the Park Smart program, the New York City Department of Transporta-
tion (NYCDOT) aims to increase parking space availability, reduce pedestrian and vehicle acci-
dents associated with double parking, and reduce pollution and congestion through new peak and
off-peak meter rates. A 6-month trial of Park Smart began in 2008 in Greenwich Village. There-
after, 71 Muni Meters in the West Village were permanently programmed to the Park Smart rate
structure. The rates are $3.75 per hour from 12:00 pm through 4:00 pm, $2.50 per hour for all
other hours. In 2009, a second 6-month pilot began in Park Slope, Brooklyn. Meter rates are
$1.50 per hour from 12:00 pm through 4:00 pm and $0.75 per hour at all other times that meters
are in effect. All other regulations remain the same. Table 11 summarizes the interview findings.
City of San Francisco: Areawide Pricing Proposal
and Variable Parking Pricing
In San Francisco, planners at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority are studying
areawide road pricing involving a $3 fee to enter, leave, or pass through certain parts of the city
during peak hours, generating revenues in support of transit, cycling, and possibly more regional
transit parking. Additionally, a proposal for pricing Doyle Drive leading to the Golden Gate Bridge
was studied but rejected. At this writing, variable pricing of on- and off-street parking in certain
downtown areas termed SFPark is planned for implementation in the summer of 2010. It will
vary pricing for parking by demand and encourage drivers to park in underused areas and
garages. It also will provide real-time information to parkers on availability. The planned test is
at 6,000 metered spaces and 12,250 spaces in city-owned parking garages. Table 12 summarizes
the interview findings.
San Francisco Bay Area: Regional High-Occupancy
Toll Lane Network
In the San Francisco Bay Area region, several road pricing projects are planned and nearing
implementation. High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes are authorized by state law in 4 corridors:
580 Tri Valley, 680 Sunol, 85 & 101 in Santa Clara. Other potential HOT lanes are receiving
attention, e.g., I-80 in Solano County. Bay Bridge peak pricing was recently adopted by the
Bridge Tolling Authority. In light of growing development and acceptance of HOT lanes, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently adopted a network of HOT lanes in
its regional plan to manage traffic and bring on line new priced capacity 2030 years faster than
traditional state and local tax funding would allow. Table 13 summarizes the interview findings.
117
OCR for page 115
118 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 11. New York City parking pricing--communication and engagement.
Agency and NYCDOT Office of Planning and Sustainability: Park Smart On-Street Pricing
Project Program
Content Framing of pricing: Frame peak pricing of parking as
Way to reduce cruising and associated traffic, improve safety, reduce violations,
and reduce cost of violations to delivery trucks passed through to businesses
and customers; not as way to drive commuters to off-street parking as there are
few commuters on-street, surveys find
Voluntary program where neighborhoods can opt in or stay out of parking
pricing; also frame as pilot with 6-month evaluation followed by possibility of
termination after that
Audience targeting: Used
Business and neighborhood association allies ("advanced troops") used to
"drum up interest" among various affected parties in the area
Several one-to-one meetings with community boards and businesses districts
Environmental/funding issues:
One listed goal in the Sustainable Streets plan is reduced pollution, and is fitting
with many efforts to reduce "miles driven" in DOT strategic plan, Sustainable
Streets
An advantage to parking pricing program is it did not require the same level of
environmental scrutiny as compared to congestion pricing studied for NY, so no
need to communicate NEPA requirements and processes
Equity:
Fairness across businesses more important than income equity
"Sidewalk surveys" important to demonstrate how and when shoppers arrive, to
counter concern about inequitable adverse impacts on some retail businesses
and those highly dependent on timely deliveries
Context Respondent's view of government image: Bolstered by
City council and planners pitched as facilitators of a voluntary program, not as
those imposing a program decided upon outside the community; "big bad DOT"
image countered by fashioning programs for each area according to
preferences
Fostered responsiveness and "transparency" by holding transportation
"seminars" for all 59 city community boards
Listed specific transportation and parking project accomplishments on agency
website and in Sustainable Streets, 2009 Progress Report
Reference to programs elsewhere:
No reference to programs elsewhere in communications, though planners have
been watching and talking to San Francisco program for latest developments
Attention to stakeholder views:
Special attention to delivery business stakeholders to ensure that the program
does not affect their delivery, and retailers to ensure that customer traffic would
not be affected
Also addressed residential stakeholders' concerns by monitoring spillover from
commercial corridor into residential streets
Vehicles Content:
Park Smart website lists range of goals from increasing parking availability to
improved safety, reduced cruising congestion, and less associated pollution
Also lists trial sites and prices and highlights "merchant involvement" and
support via sale of parking cards and displaying Park Smart logo
311 info website also lists similar information; "user feedback" encouraged via
public forums and websites
Sustainable Streets offers a Q and A section on parking programs, rates, use
instructions, operation hours, etc.
OCR for page 116
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 119
Table 12. San Francisco areawide and parking pricing--communication
and engagement.
Agency and San Francisco County Transportation Authority: Mobility, Access and Pricing
Project Study (MAPS) and SFPark
Content Framing of pricing:
Doyle Drive pricing plan framed as congestion relief and financing for major
improvements
MAPS framed as congestion relief, finance for transportation improvements
including BRT, support of "economic vitality" and environmental benefit
SFPark framed as improving parking availability, reducing cruising, pricing
changing with demand
Audience targeting:
Doyle Drive showed importance of targeting Marin County decision makers who
objected to and halted pricing plan as unfair to Marin County commuters (see
"Equity")
MAPS and SFPark show importance of targeting business community; e.g., a
special economic impact study of MAPS aimed at business concerns is
underway
Environmental/funding issues:
MAPS references climate change, potential alternative finance to potentially
"bankrupt" federal Trust Fund
SFPark emphasizes revenues to support transit
Equity: Handle equity concerns by
Potential discounts to special needs groups is under consideration for MAPS
Dropping Doyle Drive pricing plan because of strong objection of an influential
Marin county supervisor believing county commuters would bear large bulk of
pricing charges; supervisor believed downtown areawide pricing was not
objectionable because commuters from all counties would pay
Context Respondent's view of government image:
Image of government as slow to deliver on projects is hard to counter even with
plans for transit expansion in concert with pricing
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Pricing in London and Singapore referenced in study and outreach materials,
but downtown businesses see London as very "different"
SFPark references Manhattan parking pricing program as a success
Attention to stakeholder views:
Single Task Force for Doyle Drive less beneficial than several working groups
(technical, business, policy, citizen, and agencies), so issues and expertise
match up
important not to be seen as "talking down" to people or confusing them, a risk of
the Task Force model
Vehicles Content:
Website, meeting materials, newsletters, press releases--all were employed
Language important to conveying content, especially avoiding jargon and off-
putting terms such as "marginal cost" pricing and even "congestion pricing"
OCR for page 117
120 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 13. San Francisco Bay Area HOT lanes--communication and engagement.
Agency and
Project San Francisco Bay Area MTC: Regional HOT Network
Content Framing of pricing:
Framed as expediting development of HOV network over and above what
regular funding would allow, with HOT element as key to financing system and
returning revenue to the same corridors where it is generated
Audience targeting:
Key actors included CMA directors, BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority--toll
authority for bridge tolls), Caltrans, and CHP, all part of HOT Executive
Committee concerned with finance, operations, and enforcement
No specific targeting to environmental or auto interests [they do have input via
standing Planning Committee and SPUR (SF Planning and Urban Research--
an SF group concerned with HOT air quality impacts)], but will be targeted
more as individual corridor studies start
Environmental/funding issues:
CO2 emissions an explicit element, as well as NOX, all touted as improved over
regular HOV network
"Return to source" finance important for CMA, city, county acceptance
(legislation now specifies this)--more relevant where emerging HOT lanes are
coming on line, versus general pot for region
Equity:
Some concern about HOT benefiting the rich, especially in 680 planning so far,
but directing new revenue to transit blunts the issue
Analysis by professor at SJ State was referenced as finding that no one is
"forced" to pay--it is "all about choice"
Context Respondent's view of government image:
MTC and CMA image not an obstacle, with planning process generally seen
as fair
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Helpful to reference HOT programs elsewhere, and helpful that some
Commission decision makers have had tours of S. California programs
Makes concept less foreign; website references FHWA VPPP and Reason
Foundation paper on HOT networks
Attention to stakeholder views:
HOT Executive Committee views (see framing above) vital to acceptance in
regional plan, with some operational issues still to be resolved with Caltrans
(safety, weaving)
Vehicles Content:
Plan itself stresses "collaborative effort," quotes from MTC Commission chair
and Alameda County Supervisor, indicating "worked closely over many months
with thousands of ..." agencies, business groups, ABAG (Association of Bay
Area Governments; also points to benefits for economy (via congestion
management), health and safety, equitable mobility options; pitches HOT as
"expansion" of HOV concept, not a negation of it; promises "sooner funding"
for "express lanes" and transit
Plan pitches biggest revenue share is for transit, less for highways; HOT
"principles" indicate more "throughput" and reduced "delays," benefits
"commensurate" with revenues collected in specific corridor, use of "existing"
highway right-of-way, design tailoring to each corridor, but "consistent" overall
geometrics and signage
FAQ explains HOT concept, rationale, and timeline; emphasizes "tried and
true" concept, operations, cost, revenue use, attraction to HOV and transit;
says "Lexus lane" is flawed criticism; and gives links to other HOT lanes in the
United States
OCR for page 118
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 121
Portland, Oregon: Mileage-Fee Test Program
Portland, Oregon, assessed the feasibility of replacing the state gas tax with mileage fees in order
to fund transportation and improve traffic in congested areas at peak travel times through variable
distance-based pricing. The Oregon Department of Transportation operated a 1-year test of the
mileage fee in the Portland area in March 2006 with the use of volunteers. The pilot program charged
a per-mile fee at participating gas station pumps in lieu of paying the state gas tax. The charge was
$0.012permile,discountedto$0.0043 during non-peak hours in certain zones and adjusted upwards
to $0.10 for peak travel in congested zones and times. Table 14 summarizes the interview findings.
Table 14. Portland, Oregon, Road User Fee Pilot Program--communication
and engagement.
Agency and
Project Oregon Department of Transportation: Mileage-Fee Program
Content Framing of pricing:
VMT better than gas tax with decline in revenues for future finance of highway
infrastructure and operations; can be tuned to relieve congestion and to address
greenhouse gas reduction strategies
Application to plug-in electric vehicles or voluntary pilot as starters, and perhaps
voluntary switch over from gas tax to VMT fee for the future
Privacy concerns addressed by offering motorists choice of their mileage
counting mechanism with various privacy protection options, but not wise to
indicate "yes, people should be concerned" about privacy, as was done; some
effort required to explain how much people now pay for gas tax
Audience targeting:
Twelve-member task force involved legislators, localities, agency interests and
academics; auto makers not involved or electric vehicle manufactures and
interests (a mistake in hindsight, they say), but AAA involved; also attempted to
reach out to petroleum companies but they resisted "controversial" concept
Public targeted via 3 public hearings to begin pilot, continuously involved via
website and community meetings as go for "permanent pilot;" since "public" still
not "on board" (key legislators are supportive, including important Senator as
champion); in hindsight perhaps should have used focus groups to develop
most effective messages rather than just instructional materials for pilot
Should have been less in "reactive" and "trial and error" mode
Also should have started with more fixed variables in concept--emphasis on
"flexibility" scared some members of the public due to uncertainty about what
future pricing would bring
Media not targeted at first, only after their negative response; they eventually
"came around" but no "media plan" to target them was a mistake
Environmental/funding issues:
Environmental groups wanted variations in pricing more attuned to emissions,
although this viewpoint was not specified or accommodated in the program
Equity:
Urban versus rural important as equity issue since rural travelers generate more
VMT; it is also difficult for rural public to estimate whether better off under gas
tax or VMT fees; try to counter by making fee system simple
Double paying another perceived fairness issue, as public perceives gas tax
and mileage-fee system in combination--voluntary switch over may counter this
concern
Context Respondent's view of government image:
General suspicion of government always an issue--government seen as
inefficient and money grabbing
DOT image is "pretty good" in terms of getting things done, maybe in top 10
nationwide, so not a big point of contention
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 119
122 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 14. (Continued).
Agency and
Project Oregon Department of Transportation: Mileage-Fee Program
Reference to programs elsewhere: No references indicated
Attention to stakeholder views:
Task force designed to pitch concept to key decision makers and stakeholders,
and at the outset tailored program design via focus group for designing
instructional materials for pilot
Changed from central to fuel station billing to reduce public (driver) concern for
double billing, and changed from transmitting coordinates to counting only
mileage via on-vehicle devices to address privacy issue
Should have heeded public concern for more specific pricing plan as public
dislikes uncertainty
Vehicles Content:
Relied quite heavily initially on individual explanations of rationales via e-mails
in response to comments and criticisms
Used newsletters and press communications stressing themes of sustainable
support for transportation, flexibility by location and congestion
Used website for FAQ, radio, TV and print media (national and local)
ODOT communications people did not want involvement during concept
development stage but assisted enthusiastically once pilot began
Puget Sound Region: HOT Lanes, Variable Bridge Tolls,
and Pricing in Regional Plan
In the Puget Sound area, the SR-167 HOT lane project is operating and is slated for extension and
possible merging with a planned I-405 HOT lane. Variable pricing of a bridge replacement is
planned on SR-520 to fund the bridge reconstruction. Other candidates for pricing projects include
the SR 509 extension and Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. Road pricing options appear in the
long-range plan but will require state legislation that has not yet been passed. Table 15 summarizes
the interview findings.
City of Los Angeles: HOT Lanes and Parking
Pricing Program
In Los Angeles, LACMTA and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are plan-
ning for the conversion of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT)
lanes on the I-10 and I-110 corridors. (Conversion of the I-210 corridor is subject to funding avail-
ability and requires state legislation). The pilot pricing program is to be combined with improved
transit service and an intelligent parking management system in downtown Los Angeles with vari-
able pricing based on parking demand. Table 16 summarizes the interview findings.
Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul: I-394, I-35W,
and Future HOT Lane Projects
In the Twin Cities area, the I-394 express lanes started in May 2005 via conversion of an exist-
ing HOV lane from Highway 101 to I-94 in the Minneapolis area. The express lanes are dynami-
cally priced and remain free to buses, HOVs, and motorcyclists during peak hours. They also
remain free to all users during off-peak periods (and in off peak direction during peak hours). In
September 2009, the I-35W express lane opened, with 2+ carpools free and dynamic pricing dur-
ing peak periods. A portion of the 16-mile long facility uses a converted shoulder lane available at
most congested times. Potential express lanes are being investigated on other corridors. Table 17
summarizes the interview findings.
OCR for page 120
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 123
Table 15. Puget Sound Region HOT lanes--communication and engagement.
Agency and Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle: Regional Transportation Plan and
Project Various Projects
Content Framing of pricing:
Unifying theme behind implementation of SR-167, SR-520 current plan and
recent authorization by WA State Commission for 7 potential toll corridors is the
need for revenues for development and traffic management--"Tolls are
considered due to intractable funding gap for a must-do project" (from webinar
slide)
Moving Washington (state 10-year plan) stresses revenues for "strategic
capacity" and traffic management
Also pivoted off of past experience and success of Tacoma Narrows and SR-
167 HOT; PSRC RTP on pricing (see Transportation 2040) includes broad
environmental, prosperity, mobility, and quality-of-life goals
Audience targeting:
RTP scoping process goes to public at large and interest groups
Key targets are Transportation Policy Board, Pricing Task Force, and several
working groups
Doing targeted meetings with special needs, low-income, and minority groups
SR-520 planning involves city councils, businesses, public at large, and
stakeholder groups
Environmental/funding issues: RTP discussion
Emphasizes vehicle emissions reduction, open space retainment, less runoff
from impervious surfaces, "quality of life" benefits including reduced accidents
Notes statewide GHG reduction goals (1990 levels by 2020) as "legislative
direction"
References lack of sustainable funding under current gas tax system, indicating
that no tolling means "traditional" sources will need rate adjustment, indexing,
more reliance on general fund, taxes on sales
Indicates federal revenues in 2009 will be inadequate to meet SAFETEA-LU
"spending guarantees"
Big unresolved finance issue now is whether to dedicate toll revenue to toll
facilities or broader uses
Regional plan discussion also indicates must-have "financially constrained"
component, with balanced costs and revenues, supportive of pricing
Equity: RTP discussion framed and discussed around
Income differences
How toll revenues may link with fairness issue of "paying twice" if supporting
transit via tolls and sales tax (may roll back or "rebase" if toll revenues grow)
Context Respondent's view of government image:
No particular negative image presently for PSRC in plan development; agency
generally respected
Effort to get lots of public and decision-maker input which may keep image as
"responsive"
Used "model peer review" group for SR-520 work to bolster credibility of
planning model
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Tacoma Narrows referenced in toll discussions, including SR-520 FAQ
documents, especially focusing on operations with "non-stop" toll collection
Emphasized that "experiences in other cities in the U.S. and around the world
have shown that these fees can help reduce congestion"
Also referenced SR-167 as "pay for quicker trip" to counter image of tolls as
necessitating toll booths
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 121
124 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 15. (Continued).
Agency and Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle: Regional Transportation Plan and
Project Various Projects
Attention to stakeholder views:
Regular interaction with key stakeholder decision-maker groups, including WA
State Commission for overall tolling in state, Transportation Policy Board,
Pricing Task Force at regional level, and specific groups associated with project
planning, for example SR-520
SR-520 project committee (MPO head, secretary of transportation, chair of
transportation commission) received technical and outreach results (from city
mayors, city councils, chambers, public meetings) to help fashion acceptable
project (see vehicles used, below)
Vehicles Content:
Regional plan references "reliability," time savings and emissions control; also
pitches gas tax as "toll"-like road pricing in town halls, i.e., another user fee
drivers may not calculate on per mile basis
SR-520 public information stresses "variable tolls can help relieve congestion"
giving people "incentive to change travel times, reduce optional trips, take an
alternate route, or choose transit as an alternative to driving alone," also
emphasizes transit expansion and electronic signs for real-time traffic
information
SR-520 examples of vehicles for soliciting wide range of input include meetings
with cities, town halls, open houses, decision-maker and press interactions
SR-520 information presented "to more than 40 elected officials, jurisdictions,
and stakeholder groups during the spring and summer of 2008 ... these
included meetings with community and civic groups such as the Bellevue
Downtown Association and Transportation Choices Coalition, along with many
local city councils and elected representatives"
SR-520 also has special project website that summarizes media and public
reactions in a report (input from 2,770 people, many from letter-writing
campaigns sponsored by Sierra Club and Mercer island residents)
Table 16. Los Angeles metropolitan area HOT lanes--communication
and engagement.
Agency and Los Angeles Metro: I-10, I-110, I-210 HOT Lanes and Downtown Parking Pricing
Project Plan
Content Framing of pricing:
It all started as a grant application.
Increase capacity through proven concept of HOTs as opposed to more
controversial areawide pricing, with encouragement for more transit use, while
staying within limits and directions of state enabling legislation governing HOTs
Downtown parking pricing plan framed as building toward a comprehensive
approach to congestion reduction and providing connectivity to the E-W I-10
corridor and the N-S I-110 corridor.
Pricing presented as adding choice, as opposed to coercion
Audience targeting:
Involved major facilities along the corridors (e.g., Dodger Stadium, music
center, medical facilities, LA Trade Tech educational facility) and grassroots
groups in corridors ("corridor advisory groups") and media
Did not have "different messages for different groups"
Tried to make HOT real and tangible by showing how it works for different
commuter groups. LACMTA project management envisioned the need for the
use of visual aids to explain a difficult concept in a very simple way. LACMTA
project management worked with the Communications Department to develop a
DVD that was presented at meetings and distributed. The HOT lanes project
also resulted in improved communications and coordination internally among
LACMTA's different departments.
Outreach plan says "identify target audiences (commuters, transit providers,
residents, businesses, employers, employees, labor, environmental, policy
leaders, government agencies, etc.) and develop corollary key messages"
OCR for page 122
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 125
Table 16. (Continued).
Agency and Los Angeles Metro: I-10, I-110, I-210 HOT Lanes and Downtown Parking Pricing
Project Plan
Environmental/funding issues:
Political and public acceptability improved by ensuring return of revenues to the
corridor for improvements and transit support, consistent with state and federal
legislation. Support was also gained because existing carpool users would not
be charged tolls if they continued to meet the minimum passenger occupancy
requirements. Thus, the project was presented as improving the travel choices
available to them, as well as to solo drivers
Equity:
"Double taxation" is fairness issue among public
Legislators initially concerned about environmental justice, but parallel study
conducted by LACMTA and project experience has amassed to "debunk" the
idea that road pricing is unfair to lower-income people
Plans give strong attention to "multi-modal" aspect to advantage lower-income
groups
Context Respondent's view of government image:
People do distrust government; tried to counter by being "forthright" and
responsive in all matters
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Early federal-supported symposium showcasing successful projects in
Stockholm, Seattle, Texas, etc. (Gunnar Söderholm from Stockholm particularly
effective for local stakeholders to hear)
Metro website FAQ references projects elsewhere, including live chat with
LACMTA Board Chair
Attention to stakeholder views:
Attentive to stakeholder views and positions in application to Feds, mustered
necessary support locally and at state level (needed legislative support for
HOTs in early 2008), including AAA which held neutral position
Fashioned proposed state legislation in simple, short terms and referenced
existing legislation [AB1467, 2006 allowed implementation of 2 HOT lane
projects in S. Cal, with approval of California Transportation Commission (CTC)]
so RP was cast as falling within current law and policy directions
Attentive to CTC's task charged by state legislature and LACMTA project
management staff's interpretation of state legislation that was accepted by CTC
staff, all these helped merging four HOT corridors into one HOT project for
federal approval, with support and encouragement of federal VP actors
Worked with regional planning agency to amend 2001 plan to include I-10 and I-
110 projects, and I-210 if funding became available, though there was little
challenge or concern by regional planning agency actors
Outreach by LACMTA staff to several Council of Government (COG) agencies,
including the South Bay COG and the San Gabriel Valley COG, which lobbied
elected officials and public attendees at meetings
Vehicles Content:
Stressed congestion as high if not highest public quality-of-life concern in LA,
choice not coercion in HOT concept, gas tax as declining revenue source for
supporting even highway operations. Message provided was that project's
objective was congestion relief, not revenue generation.
Stressed RP was not a "double tax" issue as public was getting something new
and more than before, including support for more transit
Vehicles include "Express Lane Experience" materials with different "profiles"
for different commuters via animated PowerPoint presentations
Did media briefings to inform and persuade media of merit of the project, which
was successful judging by positive editorials
Used press releases
Website has FAQ, "discovery workshop" with links to projects elsewhere, and
live chat allowing direct communication on project topics
OCR for page 123
126 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 17. MinneapolisSt. Paul HOT lanes--communication and engagement.
Agency and
Project Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota: I-394 and I-35W HOT Lanes
Content Framing of pricing:
HOT lanes framed overall as getting better use from underutilized HOV lanes
while preserving and enhancing transit use on the HOT facilities
Emphasized as "congestion free choice" with no one worse off, and a fixable or
reversible project if conditions worsened in unexpected ways
De-emphasized revenue generation and emphasized congestion management
and improved travel options
Did not explore pricing of existing lanes for future, but now exploring the use of
shoulders (e.g., I-94); areawide not proffered as downtown congestion is not
severe
Audience targeting:
Marketing focused on individual components with different interest groups, e.g.,
Metro Transit conveyed the transit benefits in workshops for transit riders and
stressed reliability and free flow for drivers on I-35W
Tailored to purpose, e.g., certain communications just tell people that the I-35W
project is opening and remind people to buy a transponder, others promote the
telecommute initiative or transit benefits
Environmental/funding issues:
Environmental issues tended to center on noise and possible spillover around
the proposed corridor, handled by monitoring and evaluation
Revenues tied to operating costs and if there are excess revenues, law requires
50% go to transit, 50% to other transportation improvements (current revenues
do not render surplus)
"Green" aspects of the project now being evaluated
Equity:
Some concern that transit and HOV users may lose out in HOT lane, so project
managers showed transit impacts elsewhere and shaped plan to support transit
and HOV
Other possible losers were workers on fixed schedules unable to modify time of
travel very much, and this concern was met in I-35W planning by emphasizing
telework as an option
Income equity has not been paramount issue, but reference to I-15 used to
show that all income groups use HOTs
Context Respondent's view of government image:
"Sometimes" better to have University of Minnesota present to project ideas at
the outset versus DOT, since sometimes "there is suspicion of government" and
"complex systems"
University of Minnesota is considered neutral--adds credibility and objective
tone
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Community Task Force (see below) met monthly and visited California's SR-91
and I-15 projects for information and application to MN; data from both often
referenced
Attention to stakeholder views:
Under "grasstops" approach, strategy was to get decision-maker support first;
Community Task Force operated over 2004 and 2005 with representatives from
6 city councils, citizen representatives, AAA, trucking association, transit-
oriented groups, and state legislators
Task Force targeted by Humphrey Institute (Univ. of Minnesota) and DOT to
receive continuous information on HOT concept, all leading to implementation
of I-394 HOT
OCR for page 124
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 127
Table 17. (Continued).
Agency and
Project Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota: I-394 and I-35W HOT Lanes
For newest HOT plan I-35W, local mayors were targeted and are now engaged;
planner responsiveness to Task Force shown by initial proposal for $8 max and
$0.50 min charge, but Task Force thought minimum value was too high and
proposed $0.25, which was accepted as "politically palatable" even though it
results in reduced revenues; media targeted to make sure they had "all
information"
Vehicles Content:
"No question unanswered" approach in content of meetings and workshops
important element
Vehicles include University of Minnesota and MnDOT use of public roundtables
on "Rethinking Transportation Finance" for key leaders
Legislative seminars on transportation issues
Hired consultant to help develop vehicles and content of presentation materials,
feed media; also used publicity video
Dallas Region: Various Tolling and Managed
Lane Projects
In the Dallas metropolitan region, there are several toll roads that will include variable pric-
ing, following adopted regional policy. Currently, committed HOT lanes (termed "managed
lanes") include I-30, I-635, I-35E, the North Tarrant Expressway, and the DallasFort Worth
Connector. North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG; MPO for the Dallas
region) and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) have planned several other priced
expressways with variable pricing and traditional toll roads slated for the near or long term. The
North Texas Tollway Authority is the toll provider and is constructing SH 121, SH 161, and the
Southwest Parkway. Table 18 summarizes the interview findings.
New York City: Areawide Pricing Proposal
Areawide pricing was proposed in New York City in 2008. The plan proposed a daily charge
of $8 for cars entering lower Manhattan south of 60th Street to improve travel times and relia-
bility in the city. Trucks would pay $21. Autos traveling only within the priced zone would pay
half the price. The charge would apply to all vehicles, except emergency vehicles, those with
handicapped license plates, taxis, and for-hire vehicles (radio cars). Fees would be assessed
through an existing EZ Pass transponder system used for collecting bridge tolls. For drivers with-
out EZ Pass, the charge would be assessed through cameras mounted on traffic light poles, with
payment options available through the Internet, telephone, and participating retail outlets. The
revenues from the congestion charge were proposed to be used for transit improvements and
investment in the city's subway system. This plan was not approved by the state assembly and
was not initiated. Table 19 summarizes the interview findings.
Washington D.C. Region, Maryland, and Virginia:
High-Occupancy Toll Lanes
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is planning two new HOT lanes in each
direction on the I-495 Capital Beltway from the Springfield Interchange to just north of the
Dulles Toll Road (14 miles) and introduction of HOV and new transit service on the Beltway
OCR for page 125
128 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 18. DallasFort Worth area managed lanes--communication and engagement.
NCTCOG, NTTA and TxDOT: SH 121 (in operation), SH 161, I-635, DFW
Agency and Connector, and North Tarrant Expressway (planned), I-30, I-35E, Southwest
Project Parkway
Content Framing of pricing:
Supporting MPO policy from 15 years ago provides key framework: region
does not have sufficient gas tax to meet "capacity needs"; any freeway
reconstruction will test for "express lane" feasibility; but existing free lanes will
not be tolled
Also pitched that there is plenty of capacity but not at all times of day, so
pricing can shift and reduce peak demand and speeds can be "guaranteed"
because of dynamic pricing, where applied to tolled managed facilities
Framed in terms of how much we really "pay" for transportation and how old
and inadequate infrastructure will be burden on "children and grandchildren,"
so if we won't tax selves via legislature or congress, we need to pay the right
amount now to get at sustainability, especially if external costs of safety,
congestion, air quality, climate change, and energy are accounted for
Audience targeting:
Forty elected officials at NCTCOG gave unanimous support for tolls; support is
continually nurtured by "monthly communications" from staff on rationale and
purposes of tolls to "keep in the fold"
Generally used same messages across groups
Tried to maintain support with locals in part by alluding to congress and state
legislature as either not up to the job or diverting funds, compared to user fees
where "we" more local powers can ensure that funds are spent on local roads
and transit
Environmental/funding issues:
As non-attainment area, very important to tie road pricing to emissions
inventories for mobile sources, whole concept of managed lanes would not
have "its wings" if not tied to the ozone problem
Relied on reality of diminished federal funding for roads in urban areas as
central to tolling rationale; toll revenues also enable transit support not
otherwise possible (see next); for PPP projects, revenues pay back operating
costs and upfront construction costs
Equity:
Environmental justice analysis shows equity is not a problem in terms of
accessibility to jobs, i.e., geographic/spatial equity for road pricing projects is
acceptable
Stressed toll revenues as enabling transit support, e.g., (121 project) a
passenger rail project supported exclusively by tolls
Rural versus urban equity is an issue, not so much because of tolls per se, but
new toll roads cutting up large tracts of privately owned rural land (especially
inter-city)
Also some concern about private sector involvement in several projects (I-635,
DFW Connector and N. Tarrant Expressway), so concern is profit motive and
preference in private land acquisition and development
Another effort is to show that value of time (e.g., getting to daycare pickup on
time) is not a function of wage rate, so then blue versus white collar doesn't
matter--"opportunity cost" of time does, and express lanes allow choice "when
you are in a hurry"; compelling argument to say that all people will pay to not
be late, sometimes
Context Respondent's view of government image:
TxDOT is perceived to have a somewhat negative image in rural but not urban
areas, where residents seem to buy the idea of "no roads, slow roads or toll
roads" in the face of growth and declining gas tax
NCTCOG has extensive meeting and communication agenda shows that they
are not "hiding anything and always out there taking the message," fostered
also by inviting any meeting participants to subsequent meetings
Believes image and acceptability trouble can be avoided by common trap of
"preaching to friends and avoiding critics"
OCR for page 126
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 129
Table 18. (Continued).
NCTCOG, NTTA and TxDOT: SH 121 (in operation), SH 161, I-635, DFW
Agency and Connector, and North Tarrant Expressway (planned), I-30, I-35E, Southwest
Project Parkway
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Some familiarity in the region with toll roads didn't require reference to
programs elsewhere for operational explanations
Attention to stakeholder views:
Important to pay attention to all groups and at all times
Need "constant communication" to keep support of all groups including
neighborhoods, conservative tax people, libertarians, state legislators, local
officials, chambers of commerce; have stayed course for "15 years"
Key group to "keep" is the state legislators, to whom it was pitched that gas
taxes are not sufficient to meet region's needs, so tolls are the only or forced
option; doing "nothing" is unacceptable in the face of growth
Many decision makers at MPO are anti-tax and generally conservative, but
were "won over" by stressing not behavior change or social engineering, but
sustaining a system of roads and transit for growth in a fiscally responsible
way--given that the region is adding a "million people every seven years"
Vehicles Content:
Strong Internet presence was used as a vehicle, also held "40 public meetings
a year" with presentations to city councils, editorial boards, talk shows, town
hall meetings, one-to-one meetings with congressional and legislative
delegations, speeches at events (250/year), use of newsletter
Entirely open process so all can "give their 2 cents worth"; sent out 8,000
notices every time they did public meetings, so no complaints about lack of
information about meetings
Did public surveys including a panel over time on toll road attitudes
Key actor (former chair of TxDOT) coined vital supporting phrase, "slow roads,
no roads or toll roads" in support of PPP legislation
Cleared misconceptions and clarified communications content on managed
lanes about all lanes versus just express lanes being tolled
Stressed new capacity with pricing (e.g., LBJ freeway adds capacity via
frontage roads) and payment coming from managed lane's users (see framing
for content emphasis above)
Also used the message of inadequacy of gas tax, and ensuring that revenues
go to specific improvements, preventing "children and grandchildren" from the
burden
Stressed "guarantee" of free flow on managed lanes; also tried to counter
concerns about private sector involvement discussing the roles of risk taking
and distribution of revenues
and Tysons Corner. The HOT lanes will allow the Beltway to offer HOV-3 connections with
I-95/395, I-66, and the Dulles Toll Road. When completed, buses, carpools, and vanpools with
three or more persons, and motorcycles will travel for free; vehicles carrying one or two persons
will pay a toll or use free lanes. Also planned are HOT lanes on I-395. The 56-mile project would
add a third lane to the existing 28 miles of HOV lanes between Arlington and Dumfries and
would include building two new HOV lanes for an additional 28 miles south to Spotsylvania
County. Lastly, the Maryland Intercounty Connector (ICC) planned by the Maryland State
Highway Administration (SHA) will link existing and proposed development areas between the
I-270/I-370 and I-95/US 1 corridors within central and eastern Montgomery County and north-
western Prince George's County. It will be operated as a new toll facility by the Maryland Trans-
portation Authority (MDTA). The connector will be Maryland's eighth toll facility. Table 20
summarizes the interview findings.
OCR for page 127
130 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 19. New York City areawide pricing--communication and engagement.
Agency and New York City Department of Transportation and NYC Mayor's Office: Proposed
Project Areawide Pricing Plan
Content Framing of pricing:
Framed in terms of transportation needs in light of growing population, need
for managing congestion and shifting more to transit, not air quality or climate
change
Emphasized that transit service would be increased before the start of
charging or at the same time as revenue stream starts flowing
Frame impact has been weakened by current economic recession where
major capital funding for MTA looms larger, and congestion has diminished in
case of traffic and transit ridership; therefore impetus for PlaNYC diminished
Audience targeting:
NYCDOT and Mayor's Office tailored communication for specific stakeholders
Separate meetings were organized with transit and traffic communities, with
general public, constant community meetings with community boards, small
and large businesses, and outreach to environmental organizations and
environmental justice constituencies
There were different messages to different groups:
o Drivers--Reduced travel time
o Transit riders--Transit funding
o Big business--Street efficiency
o Small business--Ease of compliance, since most small businesses
rely heavily on driving
o Labor--Jobs created because of construction of new subway lines
Environmental/funding issues:
Environmental issues were not a big driver, although always referenced as
one of three prime goals (congestion reduction, transit support, air quality
improvement)
Climate change is not an obvious plus for RP, e.g., if the problem was idling,
the competing solution is encouraging hybrids ownership and transit fleet
conversion, not clearly linked to RP
RP revenues were proposed to fund a special Transit Capital Improvements
account for transit enhancements
Equity:
The "thorniest groups" were the organizations advocating for outerborough
commuters, who felt pricing was inequitable for drivers without a viable transit
alternative to driving. Organizations representing lower-income communities
supported pricing because revenues would go toward transit; low-income
groups are heavily dependent on transit, do not typically drive into Manhattan,
and some low-income neighborhoods need better transit access and options
Another equity issue was directing revenues back to source, some not wanting
to pay so that neighborhoods other than their own get more transit service
Context Respondent's view of government image:
There is some distrust among the public about MTA delivering on program
promises; "didn't help" that shortly before the failed state assembly vote, the
MTA rolled back promised service improvements because of funding shortfalls
Reference to programs elsewhere:
London areawide pricing example and quantitative results were referenced a
great deal; especially used to show air quality improvements and neutral
impacts on business
London also showed the wisdom of adding more buses before road pricing took
place to boost acceptability; problem with London was people believed it was a
good model but then rumors of some bad experiences clouded the results
PSRC plans and model analysis were also referenced
Attention to stakeholder views:
A large coalition of environmental advocacy organizations (including campaign
for New York's Future) supported the project; large businesses were generally
supportive
OCR for page 128
Interview Summaries Related to Communication and Engagement 131
Table 19. (Continued).
Agency and New York City Department of Transportation and NYC Mayor's Office: Proposed
Project Areawide Pricing Plan
Many "auto-oriented" residents of Queens and Brooklyn were opposed to the
project and could not be convinced of the benefits
Key actor (speaker of state assembly) did not come forward to support due to
installation of cameras as privacy issue, potential traffic and pollution impacts
on neighborhoods surrounding congestion zone, and congestion reduction
only in Manhattan and not other neighborhoods
The state eventually rejected the proposal due to insufficient convincing or
compromises
Vehicles Content:
Used "every vehicle in the book" for outreach; used response content in
answer to questions as they arose through Mayor's Office, e.g., on the point of
who benefits, "the majority of New Yorkers don't own a car so the majority
would benefit," "the average transit user makes $22,000/year and the average
driver $34,000/year"
Stressed pilot nature of program, "best way to predict whether it will work is to
try it" in Plan2020; also mentioned that most would pay less than the "cost of
commuting by bus"
Stressed benefit not just in Manhattan but in other boroughs as well since
much traffic bound for Manhattan passes through them
Emphasized potential economy benefit, saying "Manhattan would be more
productive" for businesses there; stressed transit improvements "prior to
implementation of congestion pricing"
A clear website table outlines "features" of the pilot; possible problem of
parking spillover outside the zone addressed by "possible solutions including
parking permits for residents"
Table 20. Washington, D.C. metropolitan area HOT lanes--communication
and engagement.
Agency and VDOT, MD SHA: Maryland ICC and in Virginia, I-495 HOT Lanes and I-395/95
Project HOT Lanes (proposed)
Content Framing of pricing:
Framed in terms of "rapidly worsening congestion and funding shortfalls,"
beginning in mid 2000s; metropolitan transportation plan updates and long-
range vision plans documenting "a system in crises"
Underscored that D.C. region ranked high on congestion (TTI rank #2) and
also pointed out significant number of commuters are from "out of state" so
some appeal for outsiders paying their fair share
HOT lanes were framed as allowing choice to pay (no forcing) and avoid
congestion, producing some congestion relief on mixed traffic lanes, and
making more congestion free lanes available to transit
Priced new ICC lanes were presented as providing a fast by-pass shortcut
between two heavily congested freeways; managed lanes promise of "largely
self-financing" new highway capacity was part of the frame
Audience targeting:
Although three consultations with MD secretary of transportation garnered
support for HOV conversion along US-50, the previous governor was swayed
by opposition to "Lexus lanes"
Still interacting with opponents of I-395/95 HOT lanes to be operated as a PPP
For northern VA HOT lanes, VDOT and private sector partner "have done
careful nurturing through well crafted outreach activities to generate and
sustain the supporting constituency," and thus far the two projects received
"close scrutiny" by the entire Transportation Planning Board and were adopted
in the region's long-range plan
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 129
132 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 20. (Continued).
Agency and VDOT, MD SHA: Maryland ICC and in Virginia, I-495 HOT Lanes and I-395/95
Project HOT Lanes (proposed)
Audience targeting is ongoing and tied to objections about added capacity and
growth inducements
Environmental/funding issues:
Maryland's Statewide Express Toll Lanes Network Initiative and Washington
metropolitan region's brochures on "sustainability" and "green future" all make
indirect references to "tolling" and "pricing" as options
MD/ICC pitches pricing as reducing VMT by resulting in shorter trips and
associated air quality benefits
However, environmental community sees new HOTs as a surreptitious way of
adding highway capacity
Revenues planned to be returned to corridors that generate them
Some uncertainty arising about I-395/95 HOT revenues falling below
projections, possibly due to effect of overall economic and traffic downturn, so
construction postponed until further analysis
Equity:
On income equity issue, referred to evidence based on surveys of user
perceptions and actual travel patterns by different population segments from
other RP projects like San Diego I-15 and Orange County SR-91 to dispel
public concerns regarding "equity"
Context Respondent's view of government image:
Importantly for D.C. region, good travel and air quality modeling tools are
respected by stakeholders and governing board
Reference to programs elsewhere:
Referenced I-15 and SR-91 on equity issue
Attention to stakeholder views:
New 2009 Revised Transportation Policy Plan resulted from policymaker
workshops and debates on future of transportation and has pricing and
managed lanes as important components
Key stakeholder group to target and attend to views is the Transportation
Planning Board (TPB) composed of the three DOTs and several local
jurisdictions
States come to the TPB for project proposal approval based on whether
project meets federal, state, and other requirements (funding, AQ, CMP, etc.)
and how the project fits in with shared regional goals and priorities
Maryland DOT as one key actor involves other state agencies like the MD Toll
Authority and relevant MPOs in planning and outreach
In 2000s, FHWA VPPP grant funded workshop to inform key stakeholders and
"opened the door" for further exploratory studies and discussions by VDOT,
eventually leading to the PPP agreement for Beltway/I-495 HOT lane project
Maryland ICC project has been supported by businesses (chambers of
commerce, etc.), trucking interests, and a majority of the region's planners; it
has been opposed by many, but not all, of the environmental community and
corridor residents
Vehicles Content:
Three involved states conducted multiple public information meetings and
public hearings
Established a website and means of responding to individual queries, held
stakeholder meetings
TPB held public hearings and workshops, consulted with TPB Transit Advisory
Committee, conducted citizens meetings during environmental review process,
held marketing campaigns, disseminated information at retail kiosks, and
engaged the press
Each state and jurisdiction relied upon established community outreach and
consultation strategies: community meetings, websites, newspaper ads, public
hearings, focus groups and surveys
