Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 65


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 64
Interview Findings 67 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