Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development (2011)

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.

84 Overview Communicating with various affected parties and stakeholders in planning for road pricing (RP) is vital to acceptable, effective, and lasting programs. Certainly, decision makers authorizing pro- posals need to understand the objectives, the efficacy of pricing, equity considerations, overall costs and benefits, operations, revenue distribution, or other particulars for them to give their support. Likewise, affected parties such as travelers, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders likely to influence decision makers also must understand pricing strategies and their expected impacts for acceptable projects to develop. However, communication should not be viewed simply as a matter of conveying pricing con- cepts to maximize understanding or counter misconceptions. For maximizing chances of success- ful road pricing proposals and projects, communication needs to be seen as only one part of a broader engagement process between planners, public officials, decision makers, affected parties, and stakeholders active in the development of RP proposals. Rather than simply putting out infor- mation, communication seen as part of engagement aims to uncover most resonant problems pricing can address, assess concerns and objections, and modify pricing proposals accordingly. Communication in this context is hardly short term. It becomes part of an ongoing and open, responsive, and committed process and posture through planning, clearances, and adoption and on to implementation and operations. In short, communication involves much more than under- standable messages and the specific content of typical communication and information vehicles such as websites, newsletters, press releases, or talking points. The important role of the communication process at all stages of engagement and development of pricing proposals and projects has been the subject of considerable study under the general head- ing of acceptability research. Relevant research can be divided into the content and context of road pricing communication and engagement. Whether communication vehicles are press releases, pub- lic forums, newsletters, websites, charrettes, community forums, or other means, acceptability of pricing proposals and successful implementation hinges on how the numerous content and context issues are addressed: Content of Communication: • The pricing concept put forth (e.g., HOT lanes, areawide pricing, VMT pricing, or other solutions) • Program design particulars selected and presented including travel options for various traveler groups and revenue distribution • The framing of fairness and plans for revenue distribution as part of the program design • The severity of congestion addressed and potential effects of pricing on congestion, traffic, and air quality A P P E N D I X B Literature Review on Road Pricing Acceptability, Communication, and Engagement

Context of Communication: • Mix of affected parties and interest groups, how their positions are assessed and addressed in planning and communication • Familiarity with proven programs; if and how such programs are referenced in planning • Image of planning agencies regarding responsibility for congestion and ability to carry out plans Content of Road Pricing Communication Type of Pricing The importance of content is addressed in probably the most comprehensive and current research on road pricing acceptability: NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 377: Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing (Zmud and Arce, 2008)—hereafter referred to as the Synthesis report. Focusing primarily on the United States, the study is based on public polls and surveys conducted since 2000. Additionally, the study references focus group information and literature. The poll sampling was arrived at from literature searches as well as a survey of 42 agen- cies (17 responding) in the United States. A key finding is that the specific pricing concept can make or break support. Aggregate public support was 73% for HOT lanes (variable-priced HOV lanes), 71% for traditional toll roads (usually flat or distance-based fee), and 62% for express toll lanes (lanes separated from main lanes and variably priced). For cordon pricing, support was only 32% and there was no support for the private sector to construct or rehabilitate a public toll facility in exchange for rights to the future toll revenues (pricing usually variable). Some of the newest pric- ing concepts also did not fare well, such as a per-household highway access fee and a mileage fee. Focus group participants in Washington State were apprehensive about a mileage-based system using global positioning systems and cell phone technology. Clearly, much depends on the specific pricing concept communicated. The importance of the kind of pricing planned and communicated is buttressed in a review of road pricing public polls prior to those assessed in the Synthesis report. A 1997 research article reviewing 13 years of U.S. and London public opinion polls (Higgins, 1997) found majority sup- port for HOT lanes and priced new lanes, but less than majority support for pricing existing lanes. Naming specific facilities versus a generalized approach (e.g., “charging drivers to enter busy city centers”) also increased acceptability, just as found in the Synthesis report where “general issue polls” rendered mixed support or majority opposition versus the majority support received for specific projects (e.g., SR-91, I-15 and I-394). Program Design and Revenues Both the Synthesis report and 1997 review underscore not only the importance of the pricing concept but also how it dovetails with a total program including revenue expenditures. The 1997 review of polls shows adding preferential treatment for carpoolers and removing an unpopular policy (ramp meters in one instance) contributed to increased acceptability, as did revenues devoted to transit expansion, maintenance of the priced facility, discounts for low-income driv- ers or offsets to tax cuts. The Synthesis report also indicates higher support when revenues sup- port highways, speed construction, or improve public transit. Focus groups in Washington State favored revenues devoted to transportation as opposed to general government purposes. A pro- posal for New York City received higher support when revenues helped dampen increased tran- sit fares and tunnel tolls. An important program design element is not only alternatives to driving but non-priced driving alternatives. A review contrasting successful pricing programs in California to an ill-fated San Francisco Bay Bridge proposal concludes no “comparable alternative free routes” for Literature Review on Road Pricing Acceptability, Communication, and Engagement 85

drivers was crucial to the demise of the proposal (Evans et al., 2007). More generally, research shows the acceptability of various “green” initiatives such as cap-and-trade emissions schemes or variable pricing in home energy meters depends on giving companies and consumers a choice between the pricing system and other options (Thaler and Sunstein, 2009). Overseas research confirms the importance of specific program design elements in RP propos- als. Studies by Ittner et al. (2003) of 369 respondents in Trier, Germany, and of 313 respondents nationwide find strong sensitivity to compliance and fear of “free riders” with implications for emphasis on enforcement strategies. Ison (1993) in interviews with decision makers around a pro- posed Cambridge scheme, finds simplicity in technology preferred to the more complex. Burris et al. (2007) hit upon simplicity too in reviewing early California HOT lane projects. They find, for SR-91, “a fixed toll schedule was more acceptable because people tend to ‘fear the unknown.’ ” Likewise, Jaensirisak et al. (2005) did assessments in London and Leeds and found acceptability hinges on limited rather than expansive areawide schemes, fixed rather than dynamic pricing, and fees under certain limits. In a survey of German residents, Holzer (2003) finds the importance of pricing designed as a means to investment is not an end in itself. Jones (2002) emphasizes selec- tive exceptions, targeted pricing to groups and trips least likely to raise hardship concerns, up- front improvements in alternative modes, and attention to boundary effects (traffic and parking diversion). The pivotal role of revenues in RP programs is affirmed in much overseas research. Tretvik et al. (2003) examined city resident reactions after implementation of pricing in Oslo through an annual telephone survey. They find the most important reason for support was revenues devoted to road construction and observe the same support in Trondheim is largely due to funds for transporta- tion improvements. Jones (2002) shows support for road pricing in early London surveys hinges on support for better public transport. He echoes the findings by Tretvik et al. in concluding that the emphasis on revenue for improved transportation versus traffic reduction was vital in Norway. Not all research points to the use of revenues for transit or road improvements. Vrtic et al. (2007) find a return of revenues to all Swiss residents competes with transit investment for high prefer- ence. Link’s work (2003a, b) across European countries shows policymakers preferring revenues for general tax reductions, and car users preferring revenues for roads and transit, but closely fol- lowed by reductions in income taxes. Confirming the importance of revenue distribution, Link finds acceptability to be “largely determined” by use of revenues in the two countries among his sample. Clearly, developing elements of an RP plan around acceptability concerns is important for even- tual adoption and implementation. But equally important is ensuring that the key elements are underscored and understood. Researchers (Ungemah and Tighe, 2005) assessing opinions about a proposed HOT lane on I-25 in Denver found that simply reminding respondents about transit and carpool services as toll alternatives boosted support by 12%. Even where programs are up and running, the public may need repeated information to ensure understanding of program elements. For example, in a survey about Houston’s I-10 HOT lanes, researchers found half of all non-users were not aware of pricing program elements (“QuickRide”) or were misinformed about how they worked (Burris et al., 2007). Fairness and Equity While income equity is the focus in much road pricing literature, the literature treats income equity as one of many fairness issues bearing on the acceptability of road pricing. The literature suggests just as road pricing may be perceived as unfair to lower income travelers, it also may be perceived as unfair in other ways to other groups of affected parties. Thus, from the standpoint of the literature and the importance of how RP is communicated and received, income equity is a subset of many important fairness perceptions. 86 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

The broad set of fairness issues important to acceptability includes how RP is perceived to affect travelers, taxpayers, urban versus rural residents, as well as how the planning and execution of road pricing takes place. The Synthesis report referenced above indicates focus groups in the New York and New Jersey area and in Miami believed peak pricing is unfair to commuters versus other travelers. In the 1997 review of polls mentioned above, fairness issues arose around workers requiring day use of vehicles, those working fixed work schedules, and those making long versus short trips. With respect to taxpayers, the Synthesis report referenced San Diego focus groups con- cerned with having to “pay twice” for using a facility constructed using traditional taxes. The authors surmise that the double pay issue is why public polls generally find more support for tolling new facilities rather than existing ones. Vrtic et al. (2007) find variation in the acceptabil- ity of pricing options by rural versus city residence and by city size. Such “spatial” equity issues arose in development of the London areawide program, and in plans or a similar scheme in New York. In New York, concerns were raised about how some commuters in the region would pay little or nothing in congestion fees due to a toll offset provision while others would pay the full fee (Schaller, 2010). About the fairness of planning and execution, Schade (2004) discusses the importance of whether or not people feel full opportunity to participate in developing pricing plans, what might be termed “procedural” fairness. Already mentioned is the finding by Ittner et al. (2003) on the importance of perceptions about the degree of potential or actual evasion of tolls, seen as unfair to honest payers. Where the literature addresses income equity, it is found to be secondary to other fairness con- cerns. The Synthesis report review of polls in San Diego, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis shows support for pricing proposals was either higher among low-income respondents or unrelated to income; nor did tax credits or toll discounts for low-income people meet with much support. Schade (2004) for OECD reviews several European studies to find income is not strongly related to acceptance of road pricing proposals. In a four-city review, Schade and Schlag (2002) find the acceptance of potential pricing schemes varied, but not by income. Vrtic et al. (2007) come to the same conclusion. Reviewing findings from the Netherlands, Jaensirisak et al. (2005) find no relation between acceptance and income. While the preponderance of acceptability literature indicates income equity generally is second- ary in importance to other equity issues, income equity issues often do arise around pricing plans. Pricing plans have encountered criticism as potential “Lexus lanes” catering to the rich and unfair burdens on the poor who may not have credit card accounts needed for transponder purchase (FHWA, 2008). Still, to the extent acceptability of pricing on income equity grounds is informed by research, analysis indicates income equity impacts depend entirely on how pricing programs are structured. For example, a recent comprehensive Rand report (Ecola and Light, 2009) on pricing equity finds progressive schemes can be constructed depending on how revenues are distributed and the presence of non-toll options (as with HOT lanes). The authors also point out road pricing com- pares favorably to traditional transportation taxation such as regressive gasoline and sales taxes. The literature also addresses how various fairness concerns may be moderated. The Synthesis report finds concerns about fairness to commuters are moderated by available alternative high- way and transit facilities, echoing Downs (2004) who suggests providing “tolling and non-tolling options” in the same corridor to moderate equity concerns. Jones (2002) suggests several ways to enhance perceptions of fairness in road pricing plans and projects. He suggests exempting the handicapped or emergency workers. He also urges attention to “use inequity” where occasional payers reap the same benefit from new roads and transit as frequent users; and “spatial inequity” depending on travel within or to/from a cordon pricing scheme. He points to Norway policies defining a period in which only one charge is made irrespective of the crossings; limits on the number of charged crossings per month; season tickets and allowances for unlimited use in cer- tain periods. Literature Review on Road Pricing Acceptability, Communication, and Engagement 87

88 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development Nature, Severity of Congestion and Pricing Effectiveness Another issue integral to the content of RP proposals is how the proposal addresses and commu- nicates the nature and severity of the problems underlying the proposal. Some research suggests trav- elers may not understand causes of congestion which may disadvantage pricing as a solution option. Survey and focus group research across Texas (Kockelman et al., 2006) found, “Several fundamen- tal sources of traffic congestion (such as population growth and inadequacy of gas tax revenues) do not appear to be common knowledge.” Jones (2002) in a review of “typical UK findings” finds the problem (traffic, air quality, etc.) must be seen as clear and severe before the pricing solution can be entertained. He puts the point well saying the “pain” must be worth the gain. A corollary finding is congestion may or may not be the most critical candidate problem for pric- ing. In some settings, the more resonant problem for pricing to address may be pollution. As Schade (2004) for OECD finds in a review of several European studies, as well as Bamberg and Rolle (2003) and Ison (1993), groups sensitive to environmental problems may be more accepting of pricing than groups more sensitive to congestion. In a review of both overseas and recent polling in several U.S. cities (Atlanta, Washington D.C., and New York City), Odioso and Smith (2009) also conclude acceptance may be boosted by ties to environmental concerns: “The research results suggest that officials should focus on the environmental benefits of congestion charging because of increased advocacy for environmental protection measures.” Just as the problem communicated must resonate, so must the promise of pricing to address it. In a review of acceptability studies for OECD, Schade (2004) finds acceptance is dependent on per- ceptions about how effective pricing may be, and such perceptions vary considerably. Vrtic et al. (2007) in their study of Swiss residents find acceptance strongly correlated with increasing effec- tiveness of proposed plans, in this case increased speeds. Bamberg and Rolle (2003) in mail-back surveys of 5,000 people in two medium-sized German towns and two villages concluded perceived effectiveness “central” to acceptability. Jaensirisak et al. (2003) find the same result from review- ing experience in the Netherlands as does Link (2003a) in a broad sample. His study included 104 stakeholder interviews among planners, including interest groups and decision makers in nine European countries, focus groups with the general public in three European countries, a Delphi survey in five European countries, as well as an extensive quantitative survey of public atti- tudes in six European countries (1,300 individuals). Of course, while effectiveness of pricing is important to acceptability, convincingly conveying traf- fic impact information may not be easy. A review of successful and failed pricing projects in Cali- fornia (Evans et al., 2007) shows various affected parties consider travel time savings from reduced traffic to be a believable potential benefit of pricing. However, few believe pricing also may offer bet- ter throughput compared to free parallel alternatives. The researchers do not assess how beliefs about throughput bear on acceptability, but given the above findings about the importance to acceptability of beliefs about effects of pricing on traffic, clear and credible explanations about such effects must be important. While conveying information about traffic and pricing effectiveness may not be easy, there is some evidence that detailed and concise information about both can move opinion. Focus groups in Texas found detailed messages about pricing impacts on traffic and com- parisons to gas taxes on grounds of equity and revenue to be persuasive (Kockelman et al., 2006). Context of Road Pricing Communication Affected Parties, Decision Makers, and Interest Groups Perhaps the most important context for RP plans is the mix of potentially affected parties asso- ciated with a proposed plan. Because decision makers, travelers, voters, residents, and the public

at large are likely to perceive road pricing plans differently, assessing their positions, fashioning plans accordingly, and reaching out to these parties with tailored communications are important to successful plans. Relevant affected parties may be a broad or narrow set. Where a plan requires an initiative or legislation and affects an entire city, region, or state, the voting public within a jurisdiction are relevant affected parties. Where a plan is more narrow and requires no public vote, the most rel- evant parties for clearance may be a smaller set of residents and businesses within the planned priced zone; travelers to, from, and within it; and decision makers for the jurisdiction. To date, research on engaging and assessing positions of affected parties has focused mostly on public and travelers. Less attention has been paid to decision makers or specific interest groups such as busi- nesses and truckers. While research on decision-maker positions is thin, results show they can be important to the fate of RP proposals and plans. Ison (1993) in a study of a proposed scheme for Cambridge, En- gland, interviewed 21 officials in city, county, and district councils and found the retirement of a single political champion was a major—or perhaps even the major—detriment to a planned pro- gram. A review of road pricing developments in England convincingly details how strong or weak advocates among politicians and agency officials can speed or retard pricing plans (Richards, 2008). For the I-394 HOT lane program in Minnesota, researchers concluded, “It is difficult to maximize public outreach efforts without the support of higher-level officials who share their advocacy with the public. Minnesota’s governor participated in conversations with value pricing advocates.” Researchers go on to advocate for a “grasstops” approach emphasizing communication with community leaders and decision makers (Burris et al., 2007). However, decision-maker cham- pions and opponents are not always so paramount in the development of road pricing projects. A review of successful and failed pricing projects in California concludes decision makers played strong and visible roles in two of the four cases reviewed. In the case of I-15, a policymaker was the key champion; in the demise of the Bay Bridge project, a few powerful legislators were instru- mental. However, in two other cases (SR-91 and I-680), policymakers did not play such crucial roles in support or opposition (Evans et al., 2007). Successful proposals emerged mostly from agency actors working with stakeholder groups, with decision makers in much less visible or active roles. To the extent decision makers are important, their perspectives on pricing need to be under- stood. The above research on California programs concludes, “Most of those who were inter- viewed believed the advantage elected officials see in road pricing is its revenue raising potential.” The researchers conclude decision makers may “find returning revenues to nearby transportation most palatable.” Likewise, an important point for the governor, lieutenant governor, and legisla- tors supporting and eventually passing enabling legislation for the I-394 HOT lane project in Min- nesota was a revenue stream sufficient to match the development and operating costs of converting an HOV lane to HOT. The favorable cost–revenue picture apparently was especially important to decision makers due to tight revenues for any highway modifications or expansions combined with the government promise of no new taxes (Buckeye and Munnich, 2007b). Of course travelers are a paramount affected party, and each segment of this group is likely to hold different perspectives bearing on development and communication of plans. For example, statewide surveys and focus groups across Texas (Kockelman et al., 2006) drew this conclusion about traveler market segments: “Logit models indicated that those who commute more than 25 miles (one-way) to work, and/or live in Austin were less likely to support conversion (tolling existing free roads). In contrast, frequent toll road users tended to be more supportive. Therefore, it may be beneficial to direct informational campaigns to those who commute long-distances, and toward Austinites, in order to increase support, since these two groups appear to be the least supportive.” Literature Review on Road Pricing Acceptability, Communication, and Engagement 89

Because truckers are influential parties in road and port transport policy and often concerned about toll changes (Urban Transportation Monitor, 2006), research on this segment of travelers has mounted. One notable assessment carried out telephone interviews with 1,200 California- based and national carriers (Golob and Regan, 1999). It found opposition to pricing, with about 60% judging the concept “ineffective,” though no reasons were stated. The research did find either neutral reactions or some support from carriers who provide just-in-time pickups and deliveries, those with short hauls and average loads, and household goods movers. However, private fleets (typically under control of large companies and accounting for a large share of the industry) did not favor road pricing (Regan, 2000). Again, segmenting trucker groups is important—reactions to pricing hinge in good part on type of carrier. Given the variation in perceptions and positions of affected parties, plans and communications need to be tailored accordingly to enhance acceptability and feasibility. However, negative posi- tions do not necessarily translate to doomed or ineffective programs. Taking truckers again as an example, an assessment after implementation of road pricing suggests truckers sometimes can and do adapt to pricing aimed at shifting travel to the off-peak hours, in spite of the oft-expressed opinion that peak pricing is ineffective for truckers. For example, in the 2005 assessment by the Illinois State Highway Authority of trucker reactions to increased tolls combined with off-peak discounts, respondents indicated the inflexibility of delivery times and ability to pass on toll costs to customers as a limiting factor in making travel time shifts (K.T. Analytics, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2008). The same opinion about ineffectiveness was found by the Port Author- ity of New York and New Jersey assessing truck dispatcher reactions to a time-of-day pricing pro- gram implemented in 2001. Truck dispatchers claimed toll increases could be passed on to customers (Zmud and Arce, 2008) with no impact on time of travel. Yet, a program at Long Beach and Los Angeles marine terminals imposing a charge of $50 per loaded container moved during peak hours resulted in a considerable shift to night deliveries (Herr, 2008). While no documented interview reactions are reported, presumably truckers have accepted the program judging by its continuance since 2005. Success and Familiarity with Proven Programs Successful RP programs gain in acceptance and approval with time. While public polling after implementation of road pricing programs is not as common as before, evidence shows accept- ability grows and concerns diminish as successful implementation proceeds. As perception research shows (Odioso and Smith, 2009), while only 40% of Londoners supported congestion charging when it was announced, “support rose to 57% just one month after charging started. In Stockholm, only 43% were initially in favor of congestion charging, but after a six-month trial period, voters passed a referendum to continue the charging scheme.” In reviewing surveys around three HOT lane projects (SR-91, I-15, and I-394), the above-referenced Synthesis report finds, “support remained high and even increased slightly” with time. Another recent review of FHWA Value Pricing programs by K.T. Analytics, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2008) echoes the finding for HOT lanes, indicating, “HOT Lane conversions have encountered con- cerns in planning about catering to the rich, but usually these have not been sufficient to halt projects. Such concerns tend to diminish among users and the public as operations get under- way.” The report draws the same conclusion about tests of VMT fees, saying, “Results from vari- able cost experiments, as with HOT lane conversions, suggest initial concern about security and technology can change to a favorable response after sufficient time and experience.” The exact reasons for growing acceptance as road pricing programs mature are not well explored. Surveys from London (Streetsblog, 2007) suggest proven effectiveness may be cen- tral and, in the case of business support, researchers surmise businesses perceived no harm to commerce. Other research (Transport for London, 2008a; 2008b) suggests some businesses 90 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development

did perceive harm in the western extension of the congestion charging zone, perhaps sufficient to cause withdrawal of the program there, though the original core program remains. Tretvik et al. (2003) speculate that not only is effectiveness at work in the growing acceptance of Nor- way programs, but also the absence of queues at tollgates and the visible, proven link between revenues and transportation improvements. Once successful programs take place, then familiarity with them in and beyond the program area can aid planners in bringing forth similar pricing proposals and generating support for them. Schade (2004) finds acceptance and preference for well-known versus new pricing measures, and Ison (1993) notes that the “snowball effect” of growing program experience is important to deci- sion makers. Reviewing a broad array of road pricing programs, Burris et al. (2007) conclude, “familiarity with congestion pricing or managed lanes increases the likelihood that the user will support congestion pricing.” A survey of California residents found more support for HOT con- versions in southern California outside of the Los Angeles region than elsewhere, concluding “This likely reflects that region’s experience with HOT lanes” (Weinstein and Dill, 2007). Planners in Minnesota concluded that familiarity is important to acceptance and produced and distributed a videotape of successful HOT lanes to TV reporters and stakeholders (Munnich and Loveland, 2005). They also concluded study task force members visiting “other HOT lane and express lane projects played a critical role in increasing the task force understanding of how value pricing works” (Buckeye and Munnich, 2007a). Researchers there conclude, “People will strongly support value pricing if they see it work” (Buckeye and Munnich, 2004). Thus, growing familiarity with pro- grams living up to promises may be key to increased acceptance over time; and, presumably, familiarity with such programs may be helpful in the planning stages of new programs, assum- ing planners reference them. Perception of Government How government and the planning process are perceived are other important contextual issues bearing on the chances of acceptance and formulation of communications. Researchers in Texas (Kockelman et al., 2006) found “clear distrust of government officials” in statewide focus groups, as well as “reservations about the planning competency of TxDOT, distrust with politicians or tax usage, and distrust with the quality of construction materials or maintenance procedures.” The researchers suggest “messengers/spokespeople should come from the community at large” as opposed to politicians. Researchers analyzing the long and rocky development of I-394 HOT lanes in Minnesota suggest perhaps shifting away from a government lead in planning may have helped move the project forward. They say, “Recognizing that there is more public trust for an initiative led by an academic institution rather than a governmental agency, the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota organized a Value Pricing Advisory Task Force of community stakehold- ers” (Ross et al., 2009). Schade (2004) finds when government, rather than individuals, is per- ceived as the main reason for the congestion problem acceptability suffers. Thus, presumably, if government has and can communicate a favorable image in coping with bottlenecks, improving transit, and traffic management, acceptability of pricing proposals is enhanced—and vice versa. Suspicion about government motives in raising revenues is another image issue. A review of pol- itics around the London areawide pricing scheme observes, “the popular press saw charging as another of Brown’s stealth taxes,” a reference to the familiar complaint of government as money hungry and money grabbing (Richards, 2008). Jaensirisak et al. (2005) point out that suspicion of government motives in pricing for revenue-raising purposes can block proposals and suggest a Swiss referendum process as a way to counteract suspicions. Tretvik et al. (2003) echo findings about government revenue raising. They find the main objection among opponents of the Oslo scheme was “already pay enough tax/duty,” pointing to the importance of governmental image as a taxing entity with already sufficient resources to deal with congestion. Link (2003a) also found Literature Review on Road Pricing Acceptability, Communication, and Engagement 91

92 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development suspicion of government motives in public surveys across nine European countries, in particular the belief that money raising may be the unstated and fundamental motive. Link (2003a) and Ison (1993) find government transparency in planning is important. Link (2003a) cites as important the clarity of program objectives, the degree to which non-pricing options have been examined, and the extent of reference to pricing experience elsewhere (as above). Another transparency issue is how quickly and well government reveals its rationales and findings when asked hard questions. Researchers of HOT lane development in Minnesota con- cluded, “An unanswered question (or accusation) can become an accusation believed. Minnesota formed a public outreach team to quickly answer any questions from the public. Common pub- lic concerns included technical feasibility, equity, impact on HOV use, and public acceptance” (Burris et al., 2007). Minnesota also relied upon a task force of elected officials, citizens, and trans- portation leaders to ensure questions and concerns were aired and to keep planning “in tune with community concerns,” avoid an unresponsive image, and help “Mn/DOT make sound decisions at key points in the process” (Buckeye and Munnich, 2007b). An observer of the rocky history behind the eventual adoption of the London scheme comes to a similar conclusion. He suggests that not mounting a constant response to criticism can create “a vacuum within which those opposed to the principle can disseminate their own interpretations,” and that the chief political champion (Mayor Livingstone) was right to “keep the media and the public well-informed,” and be “subject to regular and public scrutiny by the London Assembly” (Richards, 2008). Finally, governments acting “fairly” in planning and ensuring participation in the proposed pro- gram is important to acceptability. For example, governments at various levels acting to put in their “fair share” may be important. Harsman’s (2003) review of Norway’s experience describes how local, state, and national governmental agreements and matching funds were an important step. Jones (2003) agrees in his review of programs in Norway. Another fairness issue for government is how procedurally “fair” the planning process appears to affected parties, as referenced above (Schade, 2004). References for Road Pricing Acceptability Literature Bamberg, Sebastian and Daniel Rolle (2003), “Determinations of People’s Acceptability of Pricing Measures— Replication and Extension of a Causal Model,” in Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade, Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. Buckeye, Kenneth R. and Lee W. Munnich, Jr. (2007a), “A Value Pricing Education and Outreach Model: The I-394 MnPASS Community Task Force,” paper presented at the TRB 86th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Paper No. 06-2250. Buckeye, Kenneth R. and Lee W. Munnich, Jr. (2007b), “I-394 MnPASS High-Occupancy Toll Lanes Planning and Operational Issues and Outcomes, Lessons Learned in Year 1,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1996, Washington, D.C. Buckeye, Kenneth R. and Lee W. Munnich, Jr. (2004), “Value Pricing Outreach and Education Key Steps in Reach- ing High-Occupancy Toll Lane Consensus in Minnesota,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 1864, Washington, D.C. Burris, M. W., K. F. Sadabadi, S. P. Mattingly, M. Mahlawat, J. Li and I. Rasmidatta (2007), “Reaction to the Managed Lane Concept by Various Groups of Travelers,” paper presented at the TRB 86th Annual Meet- ing, Washington, D.C. Downs, Anthony (2004), “Traffic: Why It’s Getting Worse, What Government Can Do;” Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C. Ecola, Liisa and Thomas Light (2009), “Equity and Congestion Pricing,” Rand Corporation. Evans, Alexandra, Michael Gougherty, Eric Morris and Megan Smirti (2007), “Politics, Public Opinion and Proj- ect Design in California Road Pricing,” paper presented at the TRB 86th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 07-1677, Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration (2008), “Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing: A Primer,” Washington, D.C. Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/cp_prim5_00.htm Golob, Thomas F. and Amelia C. Regan (1999), Freight Industry Attitudes Toward Policies to Reduce Conges- tion, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine, 1999.

Harsman, Bjorn (2003), “Success and Failure: Experience from Cities,” in Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade and Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. Herr, Phillip (2008), “Approaches to Mitigate Freight Congestion,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., November 20. Higgins, Thomas J. (1997), “Congestion Pricing: Public Polling Perspective,” Transportation Quarterly, Volume 51, No. 2. Holzer, Olof (2003), “Which Role Does the Objective Play—Empirical Findings from Germany,” in Acceptabil- ity of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade and Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. Ison, Stephen (1993), “Congestion Metering in the City of Cambridge: A case of so near and yet so far?,” Anglia Business School, Cambridge, U.K. Ittner, Heidi, Ralf Becker and Elisabeth Kals (2003), “Willingness to Support Traffic Policy Measures: The role of justice,” in Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade and Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. Jaensirisak, S., M. Wardman, and A. D. May (2005), “Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pric- ing Schemes,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 39, Number 2, May. Jones, Peter (2002), “Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies: Meeting the challenge,” MC-ICAM. Jones, Peter (2003), “Acceptability of Road User Charging: Meeting the challenge?” in Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade and Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. K.T. Analytics, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2008), “Value Pricing Pilot Program: lessons learned” for FHWA, August. Kockelman, Kara M., Kaethe V. Podgorski, Michelle Bina and Shashank Gadda (2006), “Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and other Transportation Policies: the Texas perspective,” paper presented at the TRB 85th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 06-0934, Washington, D.C. Link, Heike (2003a), “The Acceptability of Transport Pricing Measures Amongst Public and Professionals in Europe,” paper presented at the TRB 82nd Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. Link, Heike (2003b), “Public and Political Acceptability of Transport Pricing: Are there differences?” in Accept- ability of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade and Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. Munnich, Lee W., Jr. and Joseph D. Loveland (2005), “Value Pricing and Public Outreach: Minnesota’s lessons learned,” paper presented at the TRB 84th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 05-0394, Washington, D.C. Odioso, Marin and Michael Claude Smith (2009), “Perceptions of Congestion Charging: Lessons for U.S. cities from London and Stockholm,” paper presented at the TRB 88th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 09-2134, Wash- ington, D.C. Regan, Amelia (2000), “What Can Truckers Do?” in Access, University of California at Berkeley Transportation Center, No. 17, Fall 2000. Richards, Martin (2008), “Congestion Charging: An idea whose time has come—but not yet, at least not in England,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2079, Wash- ington, D.C. Ross, Catherine L., Jason Barringer, Randall Guensler, Elise Barella and Lyubov Zuyeva (2009), “Perceptions of Congestion Pricing in the Metropolitan Atlanta Region,” paper presented at the TRB 86th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. Schade, Jens (2004), “Communicating Environmentally Sustainable Transport: The role of soft measures,” OECD, Paris. Schade, Jens and Bernhard Schlag (2002), “Acceptability of Marginal Cost Road Pricing,” Technische Universi- tat, Dresden. Schaller, Bruce (2010), “New York City’s Congestion Pricing Experience and Implications for Road Pricing Acceptance in the United States,” Transport Policy 17, pp. 266–273. Streetsblog (2007), “New Congestion Pricing Poll in Line with London & Stockholm,” http://www.streetsblog. org/2007/01/18/new-congestion-charging-survey-in-line-with-london-stockholm/ Thaler, Richard and Cass Sunstein (2009), Nudge, Penguin Books. Transport for London (2008a), “Central London Congestion Charging: Impacts monitoring—sixth annual report,” July, pp. 163–185. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/sixth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2008- 07.pdf Transport for London (2008b), “Consultation on the Future of the Western Extension—Report on Attitudinal Survey of London Businesses,” October. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/western extension/pdf/Annex-3-Report-on-attitudinal-survey-of-London-businesses.pdf Tretvik, Terje (2003), “Urban Road Pricing in Norway: Public acceptability and travel behavior,” in Acceptabil- ity of Transport Pricing Strategies, Jens Schade and Bernhard Schlag, editors, Elsevier, U.K. Ungemah, David and Daniel Tighe (2005), “You’re Making Me Hot: Talking high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes with the Denver public,” paper presented at the TRB 84th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 05-1191, Washington, D.C. Literature Review on Road Pricing Acceptability, Communication, and Engagement 93

Urban Transportation Monitor (2006), “Increase in Tolls Raises Concern in the Trucking Industry,” Volume 20, No. 13, Lawley Publications. Vrtic, Milenko, Nadine Schuessler, Alexander Erath and Kay W. Axhausen (2007), “Design Elements of Road Pricing Schemes and Their Acceptability,” paper presented at the TRB 86th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 07- 1548, Washington, D.C. Weinstein, Asha and Jennifer Dill (2007), “How to Pay for Transportation? A Survey of Public Preferences,” paper presented at the TRB 86th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 07-1871, Washington, D.C. Zmud, Johanna and Carlos Arce (2008), NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 377: Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 94 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development