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 68
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 69
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.
