Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 68

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 67
70 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development 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

OCR for page 67
Interview Findings 71 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 MinneapolisSt. 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., publicprivate 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

OCR for page 67
72 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development 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.