National Academies Press: OpenBook

Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development (2011)

Chapter: Part 2 - Resources and References

« Previous: Part 1 - Decision-Making and Planning Guide
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Part 2 - Resources and References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14492.
×
Page 69

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.

Resources and References P A R T 2

Certain literature on local, regional, and state transportation planning processes is helpful to devising recommendations for treating road pricing in the formal planning process as undertaken by regional and state agencies in line with federal law and regulation. The background information reviewed in this section on transportation planning carried on by metropolitan planning organi- zations (MPOs), congestion management agencies, and state departments of transportation (DOTs) offer consistent and pertinent findings for how the formal planning process proceeds and how planning for road pricing can and should fit with the process. Appendix A provides detailed findings and references from the literature on planning. Overall findings from background information pertaining to planning for road pricing are as follows. 3.1 Domestic Scan of Congestion Pricing and Managed Lanes A recent survey by DKS Associates of selected MPOs and state DOTs in 10 metropolitan areas examined how they are planning for congestion pricing and managed lanes (DKS Associates, Feb- ruary 2009). Important findings include the following: • The study found congestion pricing in eight metropolitan areas “started with individual proj- ects,” versus deriving from within regional plans. • As interest has moved from individual projects to regional approaches, “integration into the metropolitan planning process has also increased.” • Policy specifying the use of road pricing revenues has evolved in metropolitan transportation plans (MTPs), most often to cover cost of implementation and maintenance, often with excess revenues going to fund transit improvements. However, given the size and extent of typical high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane pricing projects, revenues have not been sufficiently large yet to be significant in meeting MTP financial constraint. • All HOT land projects reviewed involved assessing air quality impacts and mitigation to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. • Analysis of congestion pricing among the metropolitan areas surveyed relied on the regional travel model for analysis, often supplemented by other tools with added sensitivity to pricing and/or for analysis of costs and benefits. 59 S E C T I O N 3 Summary of Literature Review on Planning for Road Pricing

3.2 GAO Report on MPOs A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO, September 2009) surveyed all 381 MPOs (with an 86% response rate) and conducted case studies of eight metropolitan areas to deter- mine the status of planning and how the U.S. DOT provides oversight for MPOs. Important find- ings include the following: • A large proportion of MPO respondents to surveys believe their agencies lack resources and/or expertise to carry out transportation planning. Given that road pricing is a relatively new con- cept, it is likely many MPO planners may feel challenged analyzing and incorporating pricing into regional plans. • While MPOs representing more than 200,000 in population are subject to federal certification reviews, the reviews are viewed as “pro forma in nature.” MPO respondents place a greater value on informal assistance provided by both federal and state governments. • Making the planning process more performance based might enable the FTA and FHWA to improve assessment of MPO planning progress and outcomes. And, more federal investment in modeling and data gathering should give greater reliability and consistency to MPO travel demand forecasting. 3.3 MPO Review on Congestion Policies by Anthony Downs Anthony Downs at the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (Downs, 2004) reviewed the history of MPO development and action to assess whether regional planning can be improved for combating congestion and considers various organizational options for changing MPO authority and effectiveness. Important findings include the following: • Some regional agencies already have authority to implement pricing broadly and are important to implementation prospects. Downs cites the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, where a “sister” organization sets tolls for the state-owned bridges in the area. He also indicates some air quality agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board, may be agencies capable of implementing congestion pricing. • An important impetus for gaining public support for pricing is the time when congestion rises to the top of the agenda in a metropolitan area whether due to a booming economy and associ- ated growth or unusual strictures in road development or other causes. 3.4 MPO Review for TEA-21 Reauthorization by Bruce Katz et al. As with Anthony Downs, Katz et al. (2003) at the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy reviewed MPO authority and roles. Important findings include the following: • States are vital to any transportation planning. Katz indicates states receive and manage large shares of federal and state transportation money, and their “political leverage” is far greater than that of the MPOs. • Many MPOs, particularly in smaller areas, lack adequate staff and financial resources, with a recent study finding 58% of small MPOs (those representing populations of less than 200,000) have limited or no formal transportation models or forecasting tools. Such entities will struggle to analyze pricing adequately. • Specific and publicly available performance measures and feedback systems around all candi- date strategies in plans, including road pricing, will boost implementation prospects. 60 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

• Local and state planning for road pricing should be augmented by federal program implemen- tation assistance, not simply left to develop with only federal planning guidance. 3.5 Decision-Making Framework for Pricing Decisions In a review of planning for road pricing projects, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (July 2008) recom- mends four phases in the planning of road pricing projects: exploration, option development, fea- sibility assessment, and investment or finance study. Important findings include the following: • Financial planning for road pricing entails unique steps. For projects financed by debt-backed proceeds from future tolls, an “Investment Grade Study” is needed to finalize funding arrange- ments and detail project cost estimates, revenue structure, and financial resources. • Two broad approaches are used to initiate road pricing: (1) comprehensive regional or state planning or (2) specific corridor- or area-focused planning. Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) notes, both approaches “are valid.” • Road pricing planning should match up types of pricing options with appropriate goals and contexts, as HOT conversions, existing tollways, new facilities, and other concepts are best suited to varying goals and conditions. • Environmental reviews as part of road pricing planning vary with state law and custom. In some cases, the consideration of pricing may come while the environmental process is under way. The level of environmental review depends on the circumstances surrounding the par- ticular project; where the introduction of tolling and pricing is determined to be “significant,” a supplemental environmental impact statement may be required. • Planning for road pricing requires both tolled and non-tolled alternatives, as well as multiple tolling scenarios. Modeling standards can be particularly high when private sector investment is involved (to meet bonding requirements). • State and local jurisdictions have the greatest flexibility to implement tolling and pricing on local roads and highways that have been, or will be, built without federal funding. Greater restrictions apply when tolling and pricing are used on the Federal Aid Highway System, or on HOV lanes or busways funded with transit monies. Local legal requirements are dictated by state and local statutes and regulations. Several planning screening criteria important to consider in planning road pricing include: • Congestion relief potential • Consistency with state and regional plan goals • Ability to improve the efficiency of the regional transportation network • Public acceptance • Institutional feasibility • Safety impacts • Order-of-magnitude construction cost • Revenue generation potential • Financial viability 3.6 Federal Interim Guidebooks and Briefing Book Federal planning regulations and guidance is important to devising any planning framework and directly bears on how regional and state planners conduct transportation planning. FHWA and FTA have developed a briefing book that summarizes the transportation planning process and two interim guidebooks addressing the integration of management and operations and the congestion management process in metropolitan transportation planning. These guidebooks and resources Summary of Literature Review on Planning for Road Pricing 61

are intended to help provide assistance in effectively carrying out federal planning requirements. Key items from the interim guidebooks (FHWA and FTA, February 2008) and briefing book (FHWA and FTA, September 2007) include the following: • Road pricing (RP) planning will be constrained by planning cycles. For example, the Metropol- itan Transportation Plan has 5-year updates (every 4 years in non-attainment areas). The Trans- portation Improvement Program or TIP is done every 4 years. Only the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is done annually. Thus, if an RP proposal arises through the formal regional planning process, it will be bound by these timelines or, if it comes from outside the planning process, it may be “adopted” into the plan, which may constrain project timing. • States may legislate their own provisions for congestion management planning, as in California where an entirely separate agency from the MPO can be formed to carry out congestion man- agement planning. In such cases, the Secretary of Transportation must “find” that the processes are consistent with federal congestion management requirements. • The congestion management process (CMP) as described in guidance provides an opportunity to consider road pricing. MPOs [or Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in places like Cal- ifornia] in transportation management areas (TMAs)—those metropolitan areas with over 200,000 population—must have a congestion management process that includes congestion management objectives and identifies “travel demand” and “operational strategies”; road pric- ing is a logical candidate for consideration as a strategy. The CMP is intended to be fully inte- grated into the metropolitan transportation planning process. • Planners seeking attention to road pricing in federal guidance will not find it featured strongly. The documents provide reference to the strategy, but more attention to road pricing within fed- eral guidance documents may aid in consideration of road pricing in metropolitan and statewide transportation planning. • Conformity requirements in planning provide an opportunity for attention to road pricing. The briefing book points to transportation control measures (TCMs) as a means to help attain con- formity; road pricing could qualify as an emissions reduction strategy. • Road pricing may aid in meeting the metropolitan planning process requirement to be “fiscally constrained,” meaning expected revenues and costs balance. The MPO must demonstrate how it expects to fund projects included in the plan, and that there is a balance between the expected revenue sources for transportation investments and the estimated costs. Revenues may include those from “user charges,” which would include road pricing revenues. 3.7 Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Project C01 The keystone project under the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) capacity focus area is the development of a Collaborative Decision-Making Framework (CDMF) for deci- sion points in various phases of the transportation decision-making process (Project C01). The work by ICF is useful for identifying possible points for road pricing to enter planning and deci- sion making. The framework is derived from about 25 detailed case studies of transportation projects and the decision-making processes that led to their adoption. Important findings include the following: • Road pricing may be considered at several steps in the long-range planning process. Early steps setting out regional objectives such as sustainability, improving system efficiency, improving air quality, and managing congestion provide opportunities for attention to road pricing. The CMP provides another opportunity where transportation deficiencies in the region are acknowledged and where alternatives such as pricing and demand management strategies are considered and prioritized. The CMP also can spur corridor studies or major investment studies in areas where 62 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

congestion is greatest, and bring attention to potential congestion-relief solutions such as road pricing. • Corridor planning offers good potential for attention to road pricing because it is specific by area and by level of analysis. Corridor planning is the level of planning detail required for environ- mental review, suggesting both planning and environmental analysis for road pricing might be done simultaneously, thereby shortening development and implementation time. • According to the C01 project, there are two paths for road pricing under environmental review. When a road pricing project involves significant new capacity, an extensive environmental review process may be required via an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The review may be necessary either for compliance with NEPA at the federal level or for a state-level environ- mental review required by law in some states. Another path may be lesser reviews or an exemp- tion, particularly for pricing projects on existing facilities, where trip reduction and air quality benefits are clear cut and where revenues support auto use alternatives. Summary of Literature Review on Planning for Road Pricing 63

64 The interview guide (included in Appendix C) explored several points pertaining to how road pricing is treated in local, regional, and state planning and the process of engaging the public, stakeholders, and decision makers and fashioning communications on road pricing. Interview summaries were compiled on these points and all others in the guide. From the summaries, responses on each specific planning point were synthesized and compiled in Appendices E and F. Provided here are findings derived from a cross-cutting examination of the tables. From the find- ings, conclusions and implications are derived regarding the treatment of RP in the planning process. 4.1 Road Pricing Emergence Factors This section discusses the factors that caused road pricing to emerge as a policy option and to be included in the planning process in the studied regions, even if it did not lead to final imple- mentation as a project. The factors discussed below were found to be responsible for emergence of RP at multiple locations. Prior experience: Familiarity with proven examples or prior local experience aids in explaining and bringing forth RP concepts and plans. In the San Francisco Bay Area, acceptable project pro- posals for HOT lanes to be implemented in the near term in Santa Clara paved the way for a regional HOT network plan. Pricing has been part of the philosophy at the Metropolitan Planning Commission for two decades and this familiarity with the policy has been vital. In D.C., studies had been done dating back to the 1970s with legal scrutiny of RP plans over two decades before adop- tion of a vision plan supporting RP and final implementation of the first project. Regions having experience with prior failed attempts at RP have also seen successful re-emergence of the concept. In the Los Angeles area, prior failed experience with designing RP programs began debate and awareness about it among public and decision makers. In the Twin Cities region of Minneapolis– St. Paul, pricing was first proposed in 1997 without political support, but increasing familiarity with the concept over a decade helped in implementation of the I-394 MnPass HOT lanes. Constraints of traditional funding: RP emergence is aided by its potential to generate capac- ity sooner than traditional state and local funding cycles. For instance, a key motivator for the regional HOT lane network in San Francisco is that new capacity could be created 30 to 40 years sooner. Expected shortfalls in transportation revenues under traditional funding sources also aid emergence. This was the case in Dallas where indications of potential shortfalls in gas tax revenues were seen in the early 1990s, the Washington D.C. metropolitan region, New York City where the transit system required new sources of funding, and the Seattle region where the gas tax has already been raised multiple times, leaving pricing as the only option to raise addi- tional funds. S E C T I O N 4 Interview Findings

Federal funding: Funding support for RP available through focused federal initiatives like the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP), Congestion Reduction Demonstration Initiative (CRDI), or Urban Partnerships Agreements (UPA) aids emergence. This aid was seen in Los Angeles, which successfully applied for the CRDI after failed attempts at a UPA grant; Minneapolis– St. Paul, Seattle, and New York City’s areawide pricing program where emergence was sparked by applications to the UPA grant; and Portland, D.C., and New York City’s parking pricing pilot that were funded by the FHWA VPPP. In some cases, funding from public–private partnerships also aids emergence, seen typically in the case of HOT lanes with examples in Dallas and the D.C. area. Quality and strength of technical analysis: Sound and compelling technical analysis on RP impacts can aid emergence; weak or unconvincing analysis can retard emergence. Whether done within the formal regional planning processes or at project level, the character of analy- sis on relieving congestion, improving operations, providing revenues, or increasing economic productivity is important to emergence, as seen in San Francisco, D.C., and the Twin Cities region. Legislative and policy support: Adoption of policy framework or specific legislation can be an impetus to RP emergence, and pivots off of revenue needs, environmental goals, or congestion. For instance, in the early nineties, the MPO for the Dallas region adopted a policy framework stipulating that all facilities on new right-of-way and existing freeways that were being recon- structed should be tested for toll road feasibility and built as such, if warranted, because of the limited availability of funding to meet the region’s capacity needs. In Portland too, House Bill 2120 was passed, directing the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to develop pilot programs for congestion pricing and to test alternatives to the fuel tax; House Bill 2001A was passed in 2009 that allowed the Oregon Department of Transportation to make the mileage-fee based road pricing program permanent and implement a congestion pricing pilot program within 3 years. Similar legislation was passed in Los Angeles in 2006 allowing implementation of HOT lane projects. Presence of responsible planning entity and local tolling authority: RP emergence is often accompanied by creation of a specific commission or task force at the state or local level charged with planning to relieve traffic congestion and to vet options. In New York, the governor created a Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission in 2007, the same year a Congestion Pricing Commit- tee was created in Los Angeles. RP emergence is also eased when additional state authority is not needed for pricing due to the presence of a local toll authority as in Dallas or a state-authorized commission as in Seattle. In Seattle, a commission with authority to charge tolls for revenue and traffic management purposes was set up through legislative action. Pricing proposed on new facilities: RP emergence is facilitated when planned on new facilities or lanes rather than existing ones, as public and stakeholder acceptability is enhanced. This was seen in the case of new HOT lane projects constructed in Dallas and the Intercounty Connector in Maryland. Traffic conditions: The nature and severity of traffic conditions is important to emergence, whether severe, persistent congestion as recognized in Los Angeles, the D.C. metropolitan region, and New York City or the underutilization of HOV lanes as was the case in the Twin Cities region. Influence of key actors: Engagement, support, and persuasiveness of influential actors and stakeholders—such as a federal administrator, governor, senator, or other champion and the positions and actions of business, environmental, and equity interest groups—is important to RP emergence. The influence of such actors had an important bearing on the course of road pricing developments in Los Angeles, Portland, New York, and other cities. Interview Findings 65

4.2 Relationship of RP with Regional Transportation Planning Requirements Moving onward from the factors that aid emergence of road pricing, the focus of this section is on the relationship of pricing with the regional transportation plan. RP may either be part of the regional transportation plan or find a place in other plans such as statewide or corridor plans. The planning requirements that help or hinder implementation of RP are discussed below. Treatment in regional plan: Where RP is included in adopted long-range transportation plans, it enters by varying rationales and supports, sometimes by planning integral to the regional plan— as in Dallas, San Francisco, Minneapolis–St. Paul, and Seattle—and sometimes by amendments and updates based on ongoing projects—as in Los Angeles and the D.C. metropolitan area. Once road pricing is included within the regional plan, RP strategies aim at reduced congestion, delays, and emissions and improved highway performance. Additionally, they sometimes aim to bring forth transportation improvements more quickly than with traditional finance sources. Also, inclusion of RP even in general terms during a prior planning cycle can facilitate inclusion in future plans. Federal requirement of fiscal constraint: RP in regional plans plays a supportive role in meeting the regional plan requirements of fiscal constraint as revenue generation can be an important objective. The fiscal constraint requirement was cited as a key impetus to the implementation of road pricing in Dallas, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. Technical analysis and environmental review: Analysis of RP in determining preferred scenar- ios for long-range plans often involves the application of detailed regional models, sometimes requiring modification. In Dallas, detailed analysis showing performance measures about the real costs of the transportation system and how much people are underpaying was an important part of public communication, while in Seattle, sophisticated toll optimization and integrated land use–transportation models were used along with benefit–cost analysis with updated values of time. Analysis also included assessment of environmental and equity impacts as part of full envi- ronmental reviews for projects nearing implementation. Such impacts were analyzed in Dallas, Los Angeles, and New York City. Treatment of RP outside regional planning process: In some cases, RP may have an “after-the- fact” relationship with the long-range transportation plan or other state planning processes, as when developed under federal grant programs as was the case in New York City, Portland, the D.C. area, and the Twin Cities. In other cases, such as San Francisco and the I-270 corridor in Mary- land, RP is being developed via corridor studies. However, once funding is assured and develop- ment is forthcoming, projects are formally included in applicable state and regional transportation plans as seen in the case of projects in the D.C. area. RP is sometimes also included in plans outside of regional transportation plans, e.g., the 2009 Revised Transportation Policy Plan for Minneapolis that forecasts the needs and capabilities of the highway system 50 years on and the Moving Washington (Seattle) 10-year state plan that supports funding projects using non-traditional sources. 4.3 Relationship of RP with Specific Planning Actions and Required Planning Processes This section discusses how required planning processes support or hinder planning for RP. Processes include air quality conformity, congestion management, environmental review, integra- tion with specific plans (such as for greenhouse gas reduction), and parking management. 66 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

Air quality conformity process: Documentation of potential air quality impacts of RP can support conformity requirements in long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement plans. Air quality impacts projected for the San Francisco Bay Area HOT lane network showed reduced emissions compared to existing HOV network. In Dallas, all road pricing projects have undergone emissions analysis and are included in conformity assessments, including contributions to mobile source emissions inventories as part of the long-range planning process. Congestion management process: RP has been successfully integrated into the congestion man- agement process in some cases, though the fit depends on the specific type of pricing program pro- posed and the scale of application. For instance, in New York City, the congestion management process was considered applicable at a much more aggregated scale than that to which the areawide pricing scheme applied. Still, the example of New York City indicates the CMP can play the role of establishing regional consensus between the MPO and the state or city department of transporta- tion on the locations of congestion and the major problems to address. In Dallas, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis, the RP programs have been named in regional plans and are assessed as part of CMP planning and analysis. NEPA environmental review process: RP planning sometimes does not entail any significant envi- ronmental review. Pilot projects implemented under the VPPP have often received exemptions and proceeded without environmental review; however, as projects get closer to full-fledged imple- mentation, environmental reviews are considered necessary. Where assessed, RP has cleared envi- ronmental justice reviews, but sometimes requires considerable communication effort using data from established RP projects as was done in Minneapolis and Maryland (for the Intercounty Con- nector). Mitigation actions have also been undertaken in some cases to ensure environmental jus- tice, such as the building of a transit line in Dallas and addition of a transit component to the RP plan in Los Angeles. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction: RP is sometimes linked with the objective to reduce green- house gas emissions, given the documented evidence from some completed projects and recent emphasis on climate change mitigation in regional plans. New York City, Seattle, and San Fran- cisco had this as a specific objective in the regional plan that was supported by the RP proposals. Parking management: RP may be proposed as part of a parking pricing plan that may be separate as in the case of the Park Smart pilot program in New York City and San Francisco or integrated with a larger regional RP package as in Los Angeles. Parking pricing may not require significant environmental reviews. 4.4 Role of State and State Department of Transportation in Planning for RP The multiple ways in which states are involved in RP efforts are discussed in this section, using examples from the interview sites. Support for RP planning and policy: The state DOTs can play a vital role in planning and developing performance standards and principles for RP projects, e.g., by stipulating a mandatory minimum level of service as in the case of HOT lanes in the San Francisco Bay Area and through laws regarding reinvestment of revenues as in the case of Los Angeles. In Portland, the state DOT was the primary implementing agency for the mileage-fee pilot program and, in Seattle, the agency supported the MPO in planning efforts for pricing on SR-520. The state can also be involved in an important way by helping to pass legislation that permits implementation of RP programs as seen in several cases, e.g., legislation supporting use of Interview Findings 67

public–private partnerships for toll roads in Dallas and legislation authorizing tolling in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle. State DOT support, advocacy, and involvement of key actors and high-level staff are important for moving RP projects forward. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area toll network, the state DOT was one of the key actors agreeing to and developing the network; in Dallas, the former chair of the Texas DOT was a key advocate for supportive legislation; in Los Angeles, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Director was essential in moving forward the RP plans and analysis; in the D.C. metropolitan area, three DOTs on the Transportation Planning Board bring project proposals for consideration, supported by sophisticated analysis; in the Twin Cities, Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) planning and policy groups nurtured the idea and brought the gov- ernor on board. In New York City, the New York State DOT (NYSDOT) helped in conducting analysis of regional impacts of RP. The involvement of the NYSDOT and the Metropolitan Trans- portation Authority (MTA) was important to the New York governor’s support of the New York City congestion pricing proposal. Technical support: State DOTs typically provide support with technical analysis and studies as seen in almost all interview sites. In addition, state DOTs provide guidance on public outreach and can encourage involvement of the MPOs and others as was the case in the D.C. metropolitan area (Maryland DOT), Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle. Funding support: The state may provide funds to match the federal government’s pilot program grants, as in the case of Portland, or other funding sources to support RP. In Minnesota, the legis- lature authorized use of state funds to accelerate HOT lane conversions. Role in implementation: The state role in implementation varies by type of RP policy—in New York City where most roads are owned by the city, the state DOT had no key role. However, City officials sought support from state tolling agencies (MTA and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) for use of certain tolling facilities and operations for the proposed congestion pricing program. In Portland, for the mileage-fee pilot program, ODOT was the key implementing agency. States are typically not involved or minimally involved in parking pricing, e.g., in the case of New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, city agencies have been taking the lead. 4.5 Role of Federal Government in Planning for RP This section discusses the ways in which the federal government has played a role in support- ing RP programs and proposals. Support through funding and pilot programs: The federal government has been providing important funding for infrastructure and pilot support through the Value Pricing Pilot Program, Urban Partnership Agreements, and similar grants. This was a prime impetus to the RP programs in almost all interview sites. Experiences in Los Angeles, New York City, Minneapolis, Portland, and the D.C. region show that the role of federally supported pilot and demonstration programs is important in initiating technical studies, raising awareness, bringing RP into the public debate, catalyzing exploration of RP by states and local governments, and fostering collaboration among agencies. Federal encour- agement of a “learning process” has been important in advancing RP. Overall, federal RP pilot programs and project support, technical assistance via project evaluations and RP reviews, and involvement of key actors and advocacy is evident in RP development. Federal planning guidance: Planning guidance from the federal government was not believed to have much influence on RP planning, as experience in San Francisco and Dallas shows; however federal research studies, support for technical analysis, conferences, and best practice documents are valuable in RP planning; e.g., in Los Angeles, a federally supported symposium helped gain 68 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

support from the state legislature, and in the D.C. region, funding and implementation of a fed- eral pricing workshop played a significant role. Fiscal constraint legislation: Federal legislation mandating fiscal constraint in regional planning can bring attention to RP as an innovative source of local funds. This helped bring RP into the planning process in Dallas and Seattle. Air quality standards: Experience from Dallas showed that federal air quality standards such as the ozone standard may encourage attention to RP in planning since RP goals can be related to air quality improvement in non-attainment areas. 4.6 Public/Stakeholder Involvement in RP Plans Key aspects regarding the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups are discussed in this section. Organized stakeholder involvement: RP implementation is generally accompanied by involve- ment of one or more organized multiple-stakeholder groups as seen in San Francisco, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Portland. Negotiations among stakeholders who are part of the key RP committee or task force can help arrive at consensus and arrive at acceptable plans. Examples of discussion and consensus building points include how to allocate revenues for transit and HOT corridor improvements as seen in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, and Seattle; how to address equity concerns seen in Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and New York City, and how to address issues of privacy and double payment as seen in Portland. The following paragraphs contain additional examples. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the MTC HOT Executive Committee was established to over- see the overall network plan, with further plans for specific corridors. Los Angeles uses the South Bay Council of Governments to reach out to local elected officials and seeks support of grassroots organizations in specific corridors to generate support. The D.C. area attends to the chambers of commerce, trucking interests, and environmental community and involves the Transit Advisory Committee. In the Minneapolis–St. Paul region, a community task force was formed represent- ing city councils, trucking, automobile associations, and state legislators. In Dallas, all elected officials of the MPO supported the RP plans, and planners worked closely with state legislators to build understanding and consensus. Neighborhoods, businesses, and other groups in opposition initially were assessed and planners worked to assess concerns and address them in emerging plans. In Los Angeles, the Metro Board worked closely with influential state legislators to ensure acceptance. The New York mayor’s office led widespread communica- tions directed to community boards and specific interest groups. The ODOT used a 12-member task force with a mix of decision makers and key interest groups, set up presentations by high- level federal officials, and met with transportation advocacy groups. In Washington State, an inde- pendent group called the Committee for 520 interceded with elected officials, civic groups, and elected officials. Constant outreach and communication: Attention to acceptance and resistance from various stakeholder groups via constant communication is part of RP development. Outreach is aided by reference to experience from other RP projects as was the case in D.C., Minneapolis, and New York City. Outreach and communication are often supported by detailed analysis and technical studies. For instance, in Texas, key aspects were strong, focused monthly communication; constant use of media; framing of equity issues around opportunity costs of time; and emphasis on sustainability of revenue source. In Los Angeles, outreach involves numerous meetings and presentations along affected corridors. In the D.C. area, the three states conducted multiple public hearings to disseminate information, launched websites and marketing campaigns, tailored messages to Interview Findings 69

stress benefits of choice and congestion relief in mixed flow lanes, and referenced projects else- where for effects and equity. Minneapolis uses public roundtables, legislative seminars, and stake- holder workshops twice per year and emphasized the benefit to transit as this was a key concern. In New York City, communication was tailored to specific stakeholders and constant meetings were conducted with community boards, businesses, and environmental justice groups, using “every communication tool in the book,” with reference to the London pricing scheme and tran- sit improvements to increase familiarity and address transit concerns. The New York City parking programs conducted sidewalk surveys to address the issue of access to businesses, conducted out- reach to neighborhoods and businesses to build credibility and acceptance, fashioned a pilot pro- gram with voluntary buy-in as an acceptance strategy, and communicated with neighborhood individuals to generate supportive parties as allies. Oregon used a reactive approach in communi- cations, answering questions and objections as they arose, working with the media to allay con- cerns and clarify issues, and designed a pilot to attend to privacy issues. Finally, in Seattle, planners working on pricing for SR-520 targeted low-income groups and countered specific concerns such as paying twice, undertook a scoping process as part of the regional plan to get comments from more than 1,000 people, and pitched and attended to the revenue concern by ensuring that pric- ing revenues would be returned to the source corridor. Local champions: Interviews reveal RP development is sometimes supported by a local cham- pion. Specifically, the former chair of the Texas DOT (TxDOT) supported key legislation, and the 40 elected officials of the COG Board have been supportive of pricing policy in the region. The director of the MTC in San Francisco and Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York City were vis- ible champions behind the pricing proposals reviewed and the governor in Minnesota was active in supporting the first successful pricing project in the state. However, champions do not neces- sarily bring successful implementation. Specifically, the active support of New York City’s mayor was not enough to bring about a program in the face of rejection by the state legislature. Nor was the support of the MTC director sufficient to bring about early unsuccessful Bay Bridge pricing proposals. Also, the governor of Minnesota was supportive of not only its successful initial pric- ing proposal but also earlier failed attempts. 4.7 Maximizing Attention to RP in Planning— Barriers and Opportunities Experience from the interview sites revealed specific common barriers and opportunities to integrating RP programs into the various planning processes and in planning for RP in general. These are discussed below with examples. Opportunities • Transportation bill reauthorization: The upcoming reauthorization of federal transportation legislation provides a good opportunity to continually support RP planning and development by continued encouragement of pilot RP programs and funding support for implementation; agency officials in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Minneapolis believe that it provides incentive for change and for pushing pricing projects forward. • Limited transportation revenues: Federal underscoring of revenue shortfalls for transportation may bring more attention to RP in planning. Just like the federal fiscal constraint requirement, a federal policy that is explicit about the lack of revenues for transportation needs in urban areas will help MPOs gain support and approval for RP from the state. • Successful pilot programs: Implementation of successful pilots for RP projects increase famil- iarity with the concept, attracts national interest, and paves the way for further RP planning as seen in Dallas, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle. Stronger federal support to technical research 70 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

and an oversight role are important in this regard. Prospects for successful RP plans are enhanced by packaging with transit development as in the case of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Dallas. • Federal financial and advocacy support: Federal funding and support for transit and support- ing pricing infrastructure aids development of pricing projects, e.g., purchase of transit buses to increase operations before the start of pricing, a strategy proposed in Los Angeles and New York City, and transit infrastructure construction in Seattle. Additionally, involvement of key federal and/or state actors who are strong communicators and supporters of RP can advance RP plans, as seen in Los Angeles. • Congestion and fiscal constraint references in regional plans: State or regional plans with emphasis on severe congestion and need for transportation revenues and/or specific reference to pricing may provide opportunities for RP, e.g., the governor’s Strategic Plan in the case of Los Angeles; PlaNYC, the mayor’s sustainability plan in New York City; and the 2010 Revised Transportation Policy Plan in Minneapolis–St. Paul. • Travel options to increase acceptability: Acceptance of RP in planning may be helped by inno- vative ways to add capacity in concert with pricing. For example, using shoulders or restriping, without taking away free lanes, was reportedly instrumental to the acceptability of recent proj- ect proposals in Minneapolis. • Economic context and timing: Timing RP plans in relation to the economy is important to advancing RP. In Dallas, San Francisco, and Seattle, interviewed officials believe that the cur- rent state of the economy can lead to support for revenue reasons. However, the economic con- text can also be a barrier in the short term due to greater public scrutiny of how dollars are spent—this was believed to be the case in New York City and Portland—and concerns that future pricing revenues may fall short of expectations due to the continuing effects of a reces- sion, a concern in the D.C. region. • Voluntary participation option: Voluntary participation in pricing programs, at least initially, helps gain acceptance, as shown by the Park Smart parking pricing program in New York City and the mileage-fee pilot program in Portland. • Use of a tolling agency: The presence of a tolling agency authorized by law and operating for some time may facilitate implementation of pricing compared to the need to create such an agency or authority. For example, plans for pricing in Dallas probably were expedited by the presence of a tolling authority. Likewise, the presence of the Bay Area Tolling Authority in the San Francisco Bay Area may well have eased planning for how all pricing options for the region are to be implemented. New York City sought to use tolling facilities at the river crossings and their back office capabilities to ease operations of the congestion pricing proposal. Barriers • Limited modeling capability: Modeling and analysis tools can act as a barrier to RP assessment if models and tools used are not adequately geared toward pricing or based on good survey data in some cases—a finding from New York City, Seattle, and San Francisco. • Private sector involvement: Involving the private sector requires caution in RP plans. It could bring much-needed funding but could create a barrier due to public perceptions and opposi- tion to private entity, particularly if international, e.g., public–private partnerships formed to implement the HOT lane projects in Dallas. • Pricing restrictions on federally aided highways: Limitations regarding what can and cannot be done on Interstate highways funded by the federal government is a barrier to RP expansion— e.g., whether tolling can be introduced and under what conditions was an issue in Dallas and the amount that can be charged on facilities/lanes that are not currently priced was a concern in Los Angeles, in the proposal for New York City, and in the regional HOT lane network in San Fran- cisco. The city or local government needs legal authority from the state to implement pricing on previously free roads and waivers from the federal government to allow tolling on facilities that Interview Findings 71

received federal funding; this can be a barrier because local governments are less likely to pro- pose a project that may face a future roadblock. As experience from New York City’s Park Smart program shows, parking pricing could be an exception because it is implemented in local areas and may not need multiple clearances from higher level agencies. • Public and political acceptance issues: Several well-documented acceptance issues continue to be potential barriers in RP planning and development. The public’s lack of familiarity with pricing projects, perceptions of paying twice, privacy concerns and income equity arguments are referenced, e.g., Los Angeles, Portland, early efforts in Minneapolis, New York City, and Seattle. 72 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

Next: Appendix A - Literature Review on Planning for Road Pricing »
Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development 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 686: Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development explores road pricing concepts and their potential effectiveness and applicability. The report includes guidelines for project planning and integrating pricing into regional and state planning processes, and for communicating strategies and engaging affected parties.

  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!