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 95
APPENDIX E
Interview Summaries Related
to Planning for Road Pricing
Table 2. San Francisco Bay Area HOT lanes--planning.
Location and Project San Francisco Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Regional HOT Network
RP Emergence Factors HOT concept gaining in acceptance in Bay Area by virtue of acceptable
HOT project proposals (relatively near term in 4 corridors authorized under
current state law: 580 Tri Valley, 680 Sunol, 85 & 101 in Santa Clara); work
of Alameda County CMA especially vital; 680 important stepping stone,
deriving in large part from Alameda County CMA work and 1990 VP grant;
interest emerging in some other corridors (I-80 in Solano County) but not
currently authorized under state law
HOT network pivots off acceptance and familiarity from individual HOTs to
stitch together what was becoming piecemeal approach; also projected to
bring on line new capacity 2030 years faster than traditional state and local
tax funding would allow
State of economy not deterrent for near-term projects listed above, which
are mostly funded through traditional sources, but may affect financing
prospects for the larger network; stimulus package not playing role;
greenhouse gas emissions weighs more in emergence discussions; some
fear from environmental community "new highways in sheep's clothing"
surrounds network; enabling legislation AB744 is still pending with
discussions ongoing about the amount and timing of net revenue that may
be committed to transit
RP Relation to Planning MTC groundwork in studies since 2006 on operations, finance, revenues
Processes and air quality impacts helps get "ducks in order" prior to adoption into LRP,
April '09, all aided by general "philosophy" at MTC dating back 20 years to
encourage congestion pricing, whenever possible, and land use oriented
toward transit
The previous plan (adopted 2005) had network at conceptual level (last two
RTPs attended to network); the network is a central focus of the current plan
(adopted April 2009), with foundation set by "targets" in them for delay, CO2;
Performance Measurement report supplemental to MTP sets out measures
key to pricing justification
Important part of plan are "principals" adopted with plan for corridor
investment focus, revenue back to source, maximum use of existing right of
way, best technology, common system of marketing and branding to
encourage uniformity
Corridor studies now next step to specify exact configurations, cost/revenue
picture, operations
Role of Air Quality, CMP, "Air quality planning" refers to general work behind the regional plan where
Planning Regulation and pricing generally supports air quality goals; "conformity analysis" refers to
Guidance for RP Plan specific analysis prescribed by Fed for region as non-attainment area
showing funded projects getting into TIP are not increasing pollutants
beyond "emission budget"; HOTs as they are funded become part of
conformity analysis; air quality planning is not a difficult process, but
conformity is much more demanding and time consuming
98
OCR for page 96
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 99
Table 2. (Continued).
Location and Project San Francisco Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Regional HOT Network
Air quality planning not a problem thus far for getting planned HOT network
into RTP; projected air quality impacts for network: CO emissions estimated
reduced 10 million tons over 40 years compared to regular HOV network;
HOT gives better speeds with CO2 and NOX benefits, also better because
transit can move without congestion
As new HOTs are developed corridor by corridor, they will require
environmental analysis; so far, for 680 HOT (under construction) and I-580
HOT (entering advanced planning and environmental review), environmental
review not a problem (CMAs taking lead)
Role of State DOT vs. Caltrans one of the key actors on HOT Executive Committee vital to
MPOs in RP formulation and agreement on principles for HOT network (others include
CMA Directors, BATA--toll authority collecting bridge tolls in Bay Area, and
CHP)
Caltrans major concern and point of influence has been on design issues of
merging, ingress, and egress issues and still has operational (mostly
weaving) concerns; currently wants to separate acceleration and
deceleration lanes with no mixing in general purpose lanes, increasing
freeway footprint, costs and development time which MTC does not favor
Caltrans may have a HOT "business plan" mandating level of service C as
minimum for HOTs in state
Role of Federal No barriers via tolling interstate restrictions for network development
Government in RP
Planning guidance from Fed less helpful than best practices studies and
documents, and "excellent" pilot program
Federal certification process has not been issue for developing pricing
plans, either pro or con; process is "big sleeper"
Public, Stakeholder HOT Executive Committee of stakeholders vital to formulation and
Involvement in RP Plans agreement on terms: CMA Directors, BATA (toll authority collecting bridge
tolls in Bay Area), Caltrans and CHP.
No other stakeholders on Executive Committee, for example auto, truck,
environmental interests, cities; anticipate these will be involved for each
corridor as specific plans emerge
Steve Heminger as Director of MTC has been key champion on pricing for
years
Main negotiating issue and stick point among Executive Working Group
stakeholders included CMAs taking lead role in allocating revenue returns to
HOT corridor improvements and added transit to provide good auto
alternative; key elected officials from Alameda and Santa Clara counties
initially were skeptical of MTC "stealing" net revenues from early HOT and
more profitable HOT lanes in those counties and diverting revenues to
regionwide network--negotiated, pending legislation (AB744) now provides
95% of net revenues will go to source, 5% as "backstop" for areas where net
revenues are not enough; latest revenue issue in AB744 negotiations is
building in specific proportion for transit
Maximizing Attention to Opportunities:
RP in Planning--Barriers
Certification process is not opportunity to press pricing or other specific
and Opportunities
strategies and should be kept that way
Believes more research on enforcement technology automation (like
Cyclops) is needed to advance pricing planning as current reliance on CHP
and standard enforcement methods is plan weak point
Re-authorization to continue UPA type programs with encouragement for
more attention to pricing in planning is key opportunity to seize
Barriers:
Does not see modeling or analysis barriers to assessing pricing, though air
quality analysis and projections always stick point
Believes lack of funding flexibility ( "stovepipe" approach) is barrier which, if
removed, might bring more attention to pricing in planning at regional and
state levels
OCR for page 97
100 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 3. DallasFort Worth area managed lanes--planning.
Location and Project Dallas, SH 121 (in operation), SH 161, I-635, DallasFort Worth
Connector, and North Tarrant Expressway (planned), I-30, I-35E,
Southwest Parkway
RP Emergence Factors Upfront funding from local toll authority, North Texas Tollway Authority;
provided upfront payment of $3.2 billion for SH 121, first toll project and
will provide $200 million for SH 161 in 2010 for new right-of-way
Major 3-step policy adopted by MPO North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) in early nineties: (1) all facilities on new
ROW must be tested for toll road feasibility and built as such if
warranted because of limited funds to meet region's capacity needs;
(2) for existing freeways being reconstructed, test if trip length justifies
express lane and if tolls are warranted on express lane; (3) free lanes
already paid for by gas tax revenues will not be tolled. Bottom line: if
additional capacity is necessary and it can be tolled, it will be tolled due
to anticipated revenue needs for maintenance and reconstruction
Presence of local toll authority meant that no further authority was
needed from the state to start tolling, so MPO was free to plan
Fiscal constraint provision added to ISTEA in 1991 led to realization
that gas tax funds would fall short in the future
I-635, Dallas-Fort Worth Connector, and North Tarrant expressway are
existing freeways being expanded to include central tolled/managed
lanes, often with more free lanes than before expansion
In 2009, economic trends have led to media support from sources
earlier opposed to pricing, given the state's lack of revenues
RP Relation to Planning The MPO, NCTCOG has successfully integrated tolling/pricing into the
Processes planning process since 1991
MPO has been using detailed simulation models to include new toll
roads, toll road conversions, and express lanes in their plan
Do not use the term HOT lanes, but managed lanes or tolled express
lanes because their facilities are dynamically priced, with guaranteed
speeds, flexible operations, and incident management capabilities;
therefore they are more comprehensive while HOT lanes imply only two
key features--high occupancy and tolls
Have gone through full Environmental Impact Review process for
managed lanes, including special Environmental Justice component not
just for overall plan but for each toll road; addressed equity impacts,
e.g., by building 20-mile new passenger rail line on the SH 121 project,
being built by public sector from revenues obtained from an upfront toll
road payment
For most toll road projects, revenues will go to roadway improvements,
a significant share of revenues will go to air quality improvements, and
another for a 20-mile passenger rail system
Only one increase in gas tax in the 1990s in Texas and the money was
diverted to other purposes; no current push to increase it, therefore
MPO is working in public-private partnerships in design-build or design-
build finance arrangements
For the PPP projects, tolls will be used to pay back operating costs and
to pay the upfront payment to construct the road; 30-40% of total
construction cost is being paid by public sector through gas tax money
and 60-70% by private sector through revenues obtained from the
managed lane
Role of Air Quality, CMP, All above toll facilities were included in the long-range MTP in the
Planning Regulation and mid-90s
Guidance for RP Plan
Once fiscal constraint provision was added, any new freeways went into
the plan as toll roads; because the region is large, trip lengths typically
justify express lanes
Dallas is in an air-quality non-attainment region, so all air quality
conformity plans and mobile source emissions inventories are totally
integrated into RP/managed lane planning
OCR for page 98
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 101
Table 3. (Continued).
Location and Project Dallas, SH 121 (in operation), SH 161, I-635, DallasFort Worth
Connector, and North Tarrant Expressway (planned), I-30, I-35E,
Southwest Parkway
Congestion Management Process (CMP) is used well and aggressively
followed through because dynamic pricing is considered good for
managing congestion and for air quality/ozone attainment
RP is policy principle in Dallas CMP (see mobility plan & CMP on
NCTCOG website)--completely internalized since mid-1990s
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs State DOT got involved in a major way 5 years ago; credit goes to late
in RP Rick Williamson, former Chairman of TxDOT, who listened to NCTCOG
planners, agreed that funding was not sufficient, and helped pass
legislation to create publicprivate partnerships for toll roads or
Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDAs); he coined the
phrase, "Slow Roads, No Roads, or Toll Roads" that is now becoming
more widely understood
State's biggest concern is institutional--i.e. using private sector for
constructing toll roads; SH 121 and 161 are being built by public sector
toll authority, but 635, DFW connector and North Tarrant Express are
through PPPs--mainly an issue in rural areas
State has some opposition to toll roads and managed lanes, but also
realizes that it has not come up with funding on its own, especially for
fast-growing regions like Dallas
State is now backing away from some commitments to inter-city toll
roads because of opposition from rural parts of Texas (not because of
tolls but because of impact on land owners owning large tracts of land
that would need to be fragmented)
Role of Federal Government Federal support is important; federal ISTEA legislation that introduced
in RP financial constraint requirement in 1991 considered most important
Believes that all MPOs would come up with innovative funding means
of transportation investment if they followed the procedures of this
requirement and did due diligence
Federal programs such as Value Pricing Pilot Program and Express
Lanes Demonstration Program have been important--NCTCOG
pursued every such innovative federal program, winning some bids and
losing some
NCTCOG won an innovative FHWA grant to get funding for I-30 that will
be used as a permanent managed lane test corridor comprising 8-lane
freeway and 4-lane tolled expressway in the middle, with plans to test
any policy first in this corridor before applying it to all others--e.g.,
providing frequent flier miles to travelers as incentive to car pool and
use express lanes
Federal air quality standards (conformity with ozone requirement)
support managed lane innovations and increasing auto occupancy--
idea of converting HOV to managed lanes "would not have got its wings
if we couldn't pin it back to ozone problem."
On relationship of RP to federal planning requirements and CMP, "felt
that feds were late to the game and we were plowing ground by
ourselves for a long time before that"
Public, Stakeholder All of NCTCOG's 40 elected officials are unanimous in supporting
Involvement in RP Plans pricing, given the absence of leadership and revenues at federal or
state level--most likely the result of strong, focused monthly
communication on rationale and purpose of pricing from NCTCOG
targeted at these officials
Initial opposition (in 1995) was from all stakeholder groups--
neighborhood groups, conservative tax people, libertarians, state
legislators, local elected officials, Chambers of Commerce. NCTCOG
was involved in constant communication on merits of RP
Constantly use radios and talk shows to clear misconceptions about
managed lanes, explaining benefits to all types of users
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 99
102 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 3. (Continued).
Location and Project Dallas, SH 121 (in operation), SH 161, I-635, DallasFort Worth
Connector, and North Tarrant Expressway (planned), I-30, I-35E,
Southwest Parkway
Most important group to involve is state legislators who do not
necessarily have answers when the public is critical, but must defend
their position, especially because lack of money from fed or state is why
toll roads are being built anyway
Framed equity discussion around value of time being function of out-of-
pocket opportunity costs (late arrival at work, daycare for blue collar
workers), not wage rate as typically considered--idea has received
support because people understand these situations
"Well-orchestrated bottom-up approach" that uses a very strong
analytical/modeling and planning process showing performance
measures about real costs of the transportation system and how much
people are under-paying--sustainability is a key message, before the
need for revenues
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
New transportation bill should continue to support and lay framework for
Opportunities
alternative funding mechanisms--just as fed fiscal constraint
requirement provided an opportunity
A federal policy that is explicit about the lack of revenues to solve
problems in urban regions will help MPOs when they approach state
legislature for approval to implement pricing and other ways to raise
funds
Believes it is harder to build toll roads and managed lanes without an
integrated plan that is communicated well and constantly
Because toll roads have existed in the region, people are familiar with
the concept and the critics don't have much of an argument because
the toll roads are successful
Barriers:
State opposition to PPPs likely due to involvement of international firms
as concessionaires ("some sort of xenophobia")
What can and cannot be done on Interstate highways is an issue:
e.g., can managed lanes be introduced and under what conditions?
Federal planning requirements are considered behind the curve with
respect to current MPO needs, planning approaches, and strategies
Table 4. Los Angeles metropolitan area HOT lanes--planning.
Location and Project Los Angeles, I-10 and I-110 Express Lanes Demonstration Projects
(1-year long)
RP Emergence Factors Severe, persistent Los Angeles congestion
RP experience elsewhere proving workability
Engagement and persuasiveness of specific federal actor (Tyler). Also,
LACMTA project management to first get approval of immediate
supervisors and then the LACMTA Board of Directors. Inviting Tyler to
present to the LACMTA Board part of the logistics/strategies set by
MTA project management.
Persuaded board buy-in and direction to staff
Availability of federal pilot money and use by other cities
Short time frame for pilot grant and available proven RP concept--HOT
Failed application (freight-focused) for U.S.DOT UPA grant (December
2006) started debate and awareness; successful application for
U.S.DOT Congestion Reduction Demonstration Initiative (2008)
resulted from greater attention to RP as desired by feds
OCR for page 100
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 103
Table 4. (Continued).
Location and Project Los Angeles, I-10 and I-110 Express Lanes Demonstration Projects
(1-year long)
RP Relation to Planning Adopted 2001 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) analyzed
Processes pricing and concluded it was the best alternative. However, pricing
alternative was limited to increasing gas prices
Current 2009 draft LRTP mentions RP; politicians and executive
management no longer afraid to discuss RP
Downtown parking pricing plan was already included under TDM in the
2001 LRTP
SAFETEA-LU gives 5 states authority to approve exemptions to the
environmental process, but Caltrans (project partner) did not use this to
avoid criticism later, so projects are going through the normal EIR
process
Role of Air Quality, CMP, To access funding, projects must be included in LRTP, the Regional
Planning Regulation and Plan, and TIP; so adopted 2001 plan was amended to include I-10 and
Guidance for RP Plan I-110 projects, and I-210 project contingent on availability of financing
No challenges to 2001 amendment that introduced RP into the plan
LACMTA is the Congestion Management Agency, so it included pricing
in LRTP
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs State tolling authority required by U.S.DOT to be approved within
in RP 6 months of U.S.DOT award
State limited the number of HOT lanes that could be implemented
Per state law, net revenue must be reinvested in the corridor where
revenues are generated. The use of excess toll revenue includes transit
or carpool lane improvements
New state legislation passed in 2006 allowed implementation of HOT
lane projects and required approval from the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) prior to approval from state legislature
Parking pricing program for downtown is led by LA city
State DOT director supported RP from the start and this was essential
for moving the project forward.
State DOT helped with technical analysis
Role of Federal Government Federal UPA grant initiated the process, then U.S.DOT grant required
in RP increased focus on pricing, leading to consideration of RP
Feds funded value pricing study in 1995, determining that HOT lanes
were the most feasible RP project, but no funding available
Fed role enhanced at Oct 2007 LACMTA regular Board Meeting where
Asst. Director of Policy (Tyler) spoke and helped gain support
As part of the strategies set by LACMTA project management, Fed
supported LACMTA request to organize a symposium for professionals,
decision makers, and politicians in June 2008, inviting speakers from
successful RP locations (Stockholm, Seattle, Texas) whose
presentations helped gain support from state legislature
No objection to U.S.DOT grant application from LACMTA Board and
minor opposition in state legislature, partly because of strong fed role in
helping gain local and state support
Role of federal demo application: an application "raises debate"/brings
focus, once LA application didn't make it, LACMTA formed the Ad-Hoc
Congestion Pricing Committee to manage future opportunities
Public, Stakeholder LACMTA Board representatives supported RP and influenced state
Involvement in RP Plans legislature
Creation of Ad-Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee after first failed grant
was helpful and has ongoing involvement
Transit operators are partners because of the inclusion of transit in
project
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 101
104 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 4. (Continued).
Location and Project Los Angeles, I-10 and I-110 Express Lanes Demonstration Projects
(1-year long)
No organized opposition
Original concern from congressional reps and legislators about
environmental justice issues were addressed in the implementation
plan; transit component included to benefit lower-income commuters
Support of major facilities along the corridors and community grassroots
organizations was sought by providing opportunity for revenues to be
returned to the corridors along with transit improvements
LACMTA project management staff gave presentations to
representatives of elected officials, South Bay Council of Governments,
San Gabriel Valley of Governments, and agencies to explain the
project. This helped because all COG member cities have
representative decision makers in the LACMTA Board of Directors
Formed Corridor Advisory Groups with stakeholders in the 2 corridors
(residents, businesses, employees at facilities along the corridors),
elected officials, and other agencies like Highways Patrol. Also formed
Technical Advisory Group with representatives from partner agencies
and other stakeholders
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
U.S.DOT grant opportunity provided incentive for change
Opportunities
Short timeline for implementation led to choice of practical, focused
strategies
Part of grant funds used to purchase transit buses to begin operation
before tolling began
Planning and pilot implementation, role of key federal actor who was a
good communicator, role of LACMTA project management staff who
recommended to the Board to support congestion pricing
Project was consistent with the Governor's Strategic Plan for
implementation of HOT lanes
HOT lanes were not approached as individual projects, but included
transit and parking pricing in an integrated approach for managing
congestion in LA
HOT lanes controversial by themselves; so transit component was built
into project to encourage mode shift and gain public support. Also, it
was emphasized that the aim of the project was congestion mitigation,
not revenue generation
Barriers:
Public perception of "double taxation" and attitudinal barriers because
of no existing models of HOT concept in LA. Only nearby HOT lane is
SR-91 in Orange County
There are limited options to charge tolls on Interstates--cannot charge
on a lane that is not currently priced or that is not an HOT lane, though
conversion of existing HOV lanes into HOT lanes is legal
OCR for page 102
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 105
Table 5. Washington, D.C. metropolitan area HOT lanes--planning.
Location and Project Washington D.C. Region, Maryland Intercounty Connector
(ICC--under construction), Virginia I-495 Beltway HOT Lanes
(under construction) and I-395/95 HOT Lanes (proposed)
RP Emergence Factors Highly congested major state highways in the metropolitan Washington
region; region ranked high nationally in congestion (TTI rank is #2);
significant revenue shortfalls under traditional "gas tax" funding
mechanisms
Past, recent, and ongoing studies of road and parking pricing initiatives
and future prospects; past successes and failures with attempts to
implement RP on state highways
Trend of multiple RP projects currently underway--new variably priced
ICC expressway (has been on the agenda and facing legal scrutiny for
2 decades), HOT lane on I-55, inclusion of HOT lane alternatives on
I-270 corridor; 3 other flat-tolled bridges and tunnels in Maryland
Numerous think tank studies of road and parking pricing applications
since 1970s (aimed at congestion reduction, revenues, and emissions),
but these never moved forward toward implementation
In 2004, Maryland DOT and State Highway Administration (SHA)
developed a vision program for express toll lanes for all of the major
MD highways. The ICC was the first such facility to be given a firm go
ahead and the project was adopted
In response to rapidly worsening congestion and funding shortfalls to
address it, in mid-2000s, Virginia DOT opted to pursue privatepublic
partnership route for the two most congested corridors in the region,
I-495 beltway and I-395/I-95; VDOT is now implementing these 2 PPP
projects
RP Relation to Planning While not initially considered in the plan, now all three projects have
Processes been adopted in the region's long-range plan
In early 2000s, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments/National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board
(MWCOG/TPB) modified their regional travel/traffic forecasting models
to enable assessment of impacts of HOT lane projects in the region;
updated model system is now being used for assessing numerous
regional pricing studies
Maryland DOT is currently conducting a corridor planning study in the
I-270 corridor in which pricing options are under consideration
Use of well-developed and highly respected land use and transportation
and air quality modeling tools with ability to input different values of time
saved; models have been updated to address HOT lane issues
Role of Air Quality, CMP, RP was not directly considered in regional transportation or long-range
Planning Regulation and plan or air quality plan, though there are vague references to it under
Guidance for RP Plan discussion of future tools needed for addressing endemic and
worsening congestion, perennial funding shortfalls, and increasing
facility needs; role of planning processes has been peripheral and
marginal overall
All 3 RP projects were later adopted in MTP via plan updates (MD/ICC
in 2004, VA/I-495 in 2005 and VA/I-395, I-95 in 2007)
Long-range "vision plans," documents addressing "A system in crisis,"
"Maryland's Statewide Express Toll Lanes Network Initiative," and
Washington metropolitan region's brochures on "sustainability" and
"green future" all make indirect references to "tolling" and "pricing" as
options that need to be more visible in the transportation "tool box"
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs Three state DOTs were involved in planning and developing the 3
in RP pricing projects; the TPB comprises the 3 DOTs and several local
jurisdictions; states come to the TPB with project proposals and
decisions are made together on whether project meets federal, state,
and other requirements (funding, AQ, CMP, etc.) and how the project
fits in with shared regional goals and priorities
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 103
106 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 5. (Continued).
Location and Project Washington D.C. Region, Maryland Intercounty Connector
(ICC--under construction), Virginia I-495 Beltway HOT Lanes
(under construction) and I-395/95 HOT Lanes (proposed)
State provides guidance with established outreach procedures and
technical support through high-quality modeling tools
Maryland DOT involves other state agencies like the MD Toll Authority
and relevant MPOs in planning and outreach
Role of Federal Government The ICC in suburban Maryland evolved outside of the federal VPPP
in RP
In 2000s, FHWA VPPP grant funded preliminary exploration of the
potential for pricing in the region and a workshop highlighting key
pricing issues and U.S. experience; this was meant to inform
stakeholders and is believed to have opened the door for further
exploratory studies and discussions by VDOT, eventually leading to
the PPP agreement for Beltway/I-495 HOT lane project
VDOT received another FHWA VPPP grant to further develop project
design and impact estimates.
The federal programs that fund feasibility studies (VPPP, climate
change initiatives, clean air initiatives, planning requirements, etc.) are
seen by the states as major catalysts for in-depth exploration of pricing
strategies in the region; states "follow the money"
The VPPP also supported a regional evaluation of alternative scenarios
for a network of variably priced highway lanes in the MWCOG region
Public, Stakeholder Public has been involved from the start of deliberations with continued
Involvement in RP Plans involvement throughout, key stakeholders have been listened to
carefully and continuously, and elected officials and decision makers
have been kept fully informed
Maryland ICC project has been supported by the SHA, businesses
(chambers of commerce, etc.), trucking interests and a majority of the
region's planners; opposed by many, but not all, of the environmental
community and corridor residents; environmental community sees
these projects as a surreptitious way of adding highway capacity
Stakeholder reaction to the two Northern VA HOT lane projects has
been quite similar to that in MD in the context of ICC
States conducted extensive (multiple) public information meetings and
public hearings; established project information website and means of
responding to individual queries, held stakeholder meetings, the TPB
held public hearings and workshops, consulted with TPB Transit
Advisory Committee, conducted citizens meetings during EIR process,
held marketing campaigns, disseminated information at retail kiosks,
and engaged the press; used well-established state and TPB practices
and procedures for outreach
HOT lanes were framed as allowing choice to pay and avoid
congestion, producing some congestion relief on mixed traffic lanes,
and making more congestion free lanes available to transit; priced new
ICC lanes were presented as providing a fast by-pass shortcut between
two heavily congested freeways
Evidence based on surveys of perceptions of users and actual travel
patterns by different population segments from other RP projects like
San Diego I-15 and Orange County SR-91 was cited often to dispel
public concerns regarding "equity"
Feasibility studies were also carefully carried out and modeling results
were shown to support the case for projects
Environmental community sees these projects as a surreptitious way of
adding highway capacity
Each state and jurisdiction has its well-established community outreach
and consultation strategies: community meetings, websites,
newspaper ads, public hearings, etc; for RP, the states also carried out
focus groups and surveys
OCR for page 104
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 107
Table 5. (Continued).
Location and Project Washington D.C. Region, Maryland Intercounty Connector
(ICC--under construction), Virginia I-495 Beltway HOT Lanes
(under construction) and I-395/95 HOT Lanes (proposed)
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
Believes federal planning regulations could ask for consideration of RP
Opportunities
alternatives in all plan developments with adequate funding made
available to analyze the impacts of and issues surrounding RP
alternatives
The context is ripe for consideration of RP because congestion
continues to spread and intensify
In recent years, as congestion has worsened and the promise of
"largely self-financing" new highway capacity has surfaced, level of
support for RP has increased as both a potential funding source and as
a means of congestion relief
Barriers:
VA I-395/95 HOT lane construction postponed because of concerns
about revenues falling short of planning projections (perhaps due to
future effects of the current economic downturn); additional concerns
relate to likely requirement of HOV-2 being tolled
Current economic downturn probably makes it more difficult to generate
support for road pricing in the short term
Need more planning funds and grants to nurture political support and
pursue outreach with media and stakeholder groups
In MD, they believe that a financial or operational calamity is needed to
pursue RP vigorously and they are not there yet
Table 6. MinneapolisSt. Paul HOT lanes--planning.
Location and Project Minneapolis, I-394 MnPASS Lanes and New I-35W Project
RP Emergence Factors HOT lanes first proposed as demonstration project on I-394 in 1997, but
there was no political support so proposal was withdrawn by governor;
idea that "it could be implemented and people would support it
afterwards" led to failure of earlier proposals
In early 2000s, despite lack of political support, MnDOT was in favor of
implementing RP and contracted with Univ. of Minnesota's Humphrey
Institute to get it implemented
Value Pricing Advisory Task Force comprising political figures (state
legislators, city officials) was set up in 2000/2001 with goal of seeking
and identifying an appropriate demonstration project; Humphrey
Institute was tasked with public education and outreach geared towards
implementation.
MnDOT received value pricing grant to implement the recommendation
of the task force; thus in 2003 the idea of converting underutilized HOV
lane to HOT lane on 11-mile corridor on I-394 was presented to state
legislature
Because of public acceptance of I-394, MnDOT applied for and won
$133 million UPA grant for HOV-HOT conversion on I-35W, which will
also include bus rapid transit (BRT) on shoulder lanes and promotion of
teleworking as part of overall plan; project will be completed in 2010
Twin cities region has high technological expertise in ramp metering
and use of cameras for managing and improving operations
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 105
108 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 6. (Continued).
Location and Project Minneapolis, I-394 MnPASS Lanes and New I-35W Project
RP Relation to Planning Pricing ideas were first introduced in 1993 long-range plan and there
Processes has been a policy position supporting RP in the regional plan since
then; while primary driver was improving mobility, pricing is consistent
with other goals of supporting transit and improving air quality
RP first emerged from outside the planning process in the twin cities
region; VPPP provided opportunity for I-394 MnPASS lanes which
emerged from a corridor study; this then led to preparation of MnPASS
System Plan that included the new I-35W project
In Phase 2 of I-394 MnPASS lanes, MnDOT is considering
improvements and has been trying to integrate pricing into the region's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan; but the realization is that this is a
disruptive process; planners do not know how to deal with the
institutional/political issues and are not familiar with how RP will work in
a community
Planning processes are not "in-sync" and trying to integrate the different
processes for transit, land use, highways gets complicated
Ongoing relationship between local MPO and state DOT with regard to
other projects is important for planning purposes
Role of Air Quality, CMP, Having a fiscally constrained plan forced a closer look at regional
Planning Regulation and resources and at the aging transportation system, enabling pricing to
Guidance for RP Plan come up in discussions
New 2009 Revised Transportation Policy Plan projects needs and
capabilities of highway system 50 years on; resulted from policymaker
workshops and debates on future of transportation; has pricing and
managed lanes as important component
Plan recommends 45 priced corridors, similar to the UPA project of
managed lanes combined with transit improvements, BRT investments;
since Metro runs the region's bus system, it was more sensitive to
having HOV/transit lanes with RP as a policy
Metropolitan Council (MPO) is justifying and planning for
pricing/demand management through Congestion Management Plan
RP revenues are not and should not be the main focus in planning;
rather efficiency, mobility, and congestion reduction should be
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs MnDOT has had a sustained interest in congestion pricing and always
in RP had staff working on it; group of people working on ITS introduced the
idea of RP, conducted studies, and worked with the Humphrey Institute;
had been waiting for the right opportunity
State passed legislation in 2003 that allowed charging tolls on I-394;
interest from state legislators brought governor on board and allowed
MnDOT to quickly identify and implement project
Role of Federal Government Strong role--federal Value Pricing Program provided support for I-394
in RP and UPA grant is driving work on the new I-35W highway
New federal UPA grant is also imposing collaboration between state
and local agencies (MnDOT and Metro Transit) as a condition of the
grant, which is a positive thing going into the future, even in the
absence of federal incentives
Overall, federal engagement (FHWA), funding, and encouragement of a
learning process have been important
Public, Stakeholder MnDOT and project team set up a Community Task Force that
Involvement in RP Plans operated over 20042005 until opening of MnPASS Lanes in 2005.
Task force involved key leaders--representatives from 6 city councils,
citizen representatives, AAA, trucking association, transit-oriented
groups, and state legislators, met monthly and visited California's
SR-91 and I-15 projects to guide project design
Diverse project team--partnership was established between the local
team, MnDOT, and Humphrey Institute that presented a neutral face to
get community support for implementation
OCR for page 106
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 109
Table 6. (Continued).
Location and Project Minneapolis, I-394 MnPASS Lanes and New I-35W Project
Community Task Force influenced project features--e.g., minimum toll
was lowered from $0.50 to $0.25 for political acceptability
Key feature of strategy involved "grasstops approach" (reaching out to
elected officials and community leaders who can then communicate
with their constituents) to first get support of elected officials before the
general public; communicated with media
Recent survey work to evaluate I-394 showed broad-based support
from 75% of the population
Univ. of Minnesota and MnDOT sponsored public roundtables on
"Rethinking Transportation Finance," organized legislative seminars on
RP, held stakeholder workshops twice a year with presentations from
MnDOT; tried to leave no question unanswered
Effect of HOT lanes on transit was a key public concern--allayed by
communicating research and findings after project was built; evaluation
surveys for I-394 found that lanes were benefitting transit and there was
not much effect in HOVs/carpools.
For new I-35W project, focused on individual components of project for
different interest groups, rather than on whole package
No "organized" opposition, but trucking association has been an
opponent and has sought state legislation prohibiting tolling projects
except for HOV conversions and shoulder projects
Very little public involvement in the regional plan because it is difficult to
include them in a 20-year plan
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
Believes that without federal financial incentive offered through VPPP,
Opportunities
RP would not have reached this level of implementation anywhere in
the country
Federal position on long-range plans is important and next role of feds
should be to give incentives to projects that include RP
Believes even with pricing project, more impact will be seen when
people change behavior and shift to transit; therefore transit projects
must include incentives for congestion pricing as a next step and
institutions should work together
Success of I-394 has been a major driver in moving the I-35W project
forward at a fast pace; also because it is an add-on lane that does not
take away free lanes
More encouragement of pricing should be built into federal planning
guidance
2010 Revised Transportation Policy Plan will include a more significant
role for RP with a 50-year vision
Barriers
Early issues: no toll roads in Minnesota when the MnPASS lanes were
proposed, so no experience; funding for a series of pilot projects failed
to come through; a publicprivate partnership proposal similar to SR-91
failed because the community vetoed it
Not much public communication or education prior to I-394 proposal
which faced major political opposition; so MnDOT and project team
realized need to improve communication strategies and hired a
communications consultant
Lack of funding; Metro has done studies to show where DOT can
implement low-medium cost improvements to region's highway systems
using pricing and demand management, but these cannot be funded
because of the need to fund other high-cost projects
OCR for page 107
110 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 7. New York City areawide pricing--planning.
Location and Project New York City, Areawide Pricing (proposed pilot program)
RP Emergence Factors Discussion on effects of congestion in NYC began in 2000 with several
studies including the Growth or Gridlock study by Partnership for NYC
(a business organization); study estimated congestion to cost
$13 billion in terms of lost economic productivity
Mayor Bloomberg proposed congestion pricing in 2007 as part of
sustainability plan for 2030, PlaNYC; State Legislature set up Traffic
Congestion Mitigation Commission with members appointed by the
governor, legislature, mayor, and city council
MTA was awarded a $354 million Urban Partnerships Agreement (UPA)
grant, conditional upon city adopting congestion pricing to address
short-term transit needs; UPA set a deadline for legislative action; UPA
application proposed a 3-year pilot program for congestion pricing with
an interim evaluation after 18 months
Commission issued recommendations in 2007; city council passed
resolution in favor of the proposal but state legislature did not act
In 2009, with MTA still in fiscal trouble, need for revenues was raised
again; Ravitch Commission set up to ensure long-term fiscal health of
MTA considering Manhattan-wide Mobility Tax (0.34% of payroll) and
tolls on city-owned East River and Harlem River bridges; legislature
adopted payroll tax but not the tolls
RP Relation to Planning In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled a sustainability plan for NYC for
Processes 2030 that took land use, transportation, and climate change into
account; this plan PlaNYC included the congestion pricing policy
(London-style areawide charge, south of 86th street)
PlaNYC is more than a transportation plan; it is a policy framework for
infrastructure initiatives with a set of interlocking policies aimed at
sustainability; pricing was included, recognizing other levels of
government would need to approve
No direct link between MPO's regional transportation plan and city's
PlaNYC; the two entities coordinate on large transportation investments
but MPO does not guide what the city implements
MPO's RTP has general language supporting pricing in principle; 2006
plan called for closer look at using pricing for transportation
improvements, including solving congestion and expanding transit
Overall, congestion pricing emerged from outside the MPO's long-range
planning process
Role of Air Quality, CMP, Transportation and environmental goals were the major drivers for the
Planning Regulation and project; plan addressed congestion and population and economic
Guidance for RP Plan growth
Since UPA funds were involved, the city had to satisfy NEPA
requirements; project got stalled at state assembly when
preparatory/scoping work for EIS had already begun
EIS requirements and NEPA process can be burdensome
Formal air quality conformity process had no role in RP, though GHG
emissions reduction was a broad goal of the plan
Congestion Management Process played no role in this pricing project;
CMP is updated every 2 years and represents regional consensus on
problems that MPO and DOT need to address, but congestion locations
and facility needs are not very accurate at local city level because
MPO's regional model was designed for highway travel
Addressing climate change is a goal in PlaNYC; RP was one part of
larger set of plans addressing climate issues
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs The city (NYCDOT and the Mayor's Office) led all planning for the
in RP project, not the state
State DOT provided staff support to NYCDOT and was a very
supportive partner in the implementation of the plan in an
engineering/technical role
OCR for page 108
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 111
Table 7. (Continued).
Location and Project New York City, Areawide Pricing (proposed pilot program)
State DOT worked with MPO on planning and with city on impact
analysis; involvement of high-level policy staff at state DOT was helpful;
state assessed regional impacts beyond city's borders and found
overall improvement in mobility on arterial system
State had minimal implementation role because very few roads in NYC
are state owned; most are city/locally owned
Role of Federal Government UPA grant did not drive consideration of RP; analysis of the feasibility of
in RP congestion pricing started before UPA grant was on the table but was
helped forward by prospect of UPA funds. UPA grant paid for
consulting work and early implementation studies (about $23 million)
and also would have funded BRT routes
UPA grant set deadline that kept the project moving
Public, Stakeholder NYCDOT and Mayor's Office framed issues and tailored
Involvement in RP Plans communication for specific stakeholders--separate meetings were
organized with transit and traffic communities, with general public,
constant community meetings with community boards, small and large
businesses, and outreach to environmental organizations and
environmental justice constituencies--used "every communication tool
in the book" for public outreach
Major concern was that congestion pricing would hurt outer borough
commuters, so transit improvement was a key message of the project;
low-income groups heavily depend on transit, do not typically drive into
Manhattan, and some low-income neighborhoods need better transit
access and options; therefore RP revenues were proposed to fund a
special Transit Capital Improvements account
London areawide pricing example and quantitative results were
referenced a great deal; used to show air quality improvements and
neutral impacts on business
Large businesses were generally supportive of project, but some small
businesses were concerned about impacts on delivery/wholesale
businesses; many residents of "auto-dependent" areas of Queens and
Brooklyn were opposed to the project
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
The lack of capital funding could be instrumental in bringing back
Opportunities
congestion pricing--to solve the problem of funding MTA Capital Plan.
Barriers:
City needs legal authority from state to implement congestion pricing or
tolls on previously untolled roads
Tolling could be allowed on Interstate highways and waivers
guaranteed to local governments to implement tolls on facilities that
received federal funding; local governments are less likely to propose a
project that may face a future roadblock
Political upheavals--resignation of supportive governor at critical time,
one month before bill came up for vote in state assembly
Powerful opponents in state assembly--issues were skepticism about
MTA's use of funds, potential parking impacts outside the pricing zone,
drivers not wanting to pay, privacy concerns due to installation of
cameras, and impacts on occasional trips to hospitals and medical
facilities; UPA deadline pushed the project forward; no such deadline
now and focus has shifted to current fiscal situation
Federal environmental review process made prospective environmental
review more demanding but not a major obstacle; the additional rules
can be a barrier
Equity arguments hard to refute since "equity" means different things
to different people--often meant why do "I" have to pay but not
someone else
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 109
112 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 7. (Continued).
Location and Project New York City, Areawide Pricing (proposed pilot program)
With current economic recession, capital funding for MTA is a huge
issue to solve but after two major battles, there is little appetite to revisit
congestion pricing or bridge tolls; additionally, in an economic downturn
data shows that traffic and transit ridership both go down, making
congestion and crowding on transit less acute problems
Congestion pricing cannot be formalized in the planning process unless
it is politically accepted as a legitimate transportation option; political
barrier must be passed for planners to be able to effectively analyze the
policy
No champion exists for the project because supporting RP is still
perceived as a risky political position
Table 8. New York City parking pricing--planning.
Location and Project New York City, Park Smart Parking Pricing (under implementation)
RP Emergence Factors NYCDOT Division of Planning and Sustainability has received funding
for six pilot Park Smart programs through the Value Pricing Pilot
Program
RP Relation to Planning Periodic studies on parking pricing, justification, and synchronization
Processes with goals of PlaNYC was done to keep parking pricing on the radar
NYCDOT's Sustainable Streets Strategic Plan to improve curb
management was an important impetus for Park Smart program
No relationship of parking pricing with the regional plan
Role of Air Quality, CMP, The NYCDOT Sustainable Streets plan includes curb management in
Planning Regulation and one of its goals and Parking Pricing as a strategy
Guidance for RP Plan
No role of NEPA process or air quality assessments in the parking
pricing program, but required for the congestion pricing plan
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs State DOT not directly involved
in RP
Role of Federal Government Federal funding through the VPPP for pilot program evaluation
in RP
Public, Stakeholder Agency worked with delivery businesses to understand how their
Involvement in RP Plans businesses work (which ones depend on peak vs. off-peak deliveries)
and show that the program would not negatively impact their finances;
face-to-face interactions with businesses
NYCDOT conducted a sidewalk survey in response to business
concerns that parking fees would discourage clientele arriving at stores
by motor vehicles; instead survey found that most customers were
arriving at stores by foot or subway or bus or bikes and thus relatively
few of their customers would be impacted by parking fees
NYCDOT worked closely with neighborhoods, community boards, and
business districts; sought inputs, and responded by including strategies
in program design that addressed community issues; agency developed
credibility and buy-in by doing this
All evaluations of parking, traffic, etc. were shared with affected parties
6-month pilot programs were only implemented in neighborhoods that
were open to a pilot project; agency emphasized that continuation of
the program at the end of 6 months would be based on evaluations and
further consultation
NYCDOT gained allies in each neighborhood who helped build support
and generate more interest early in the outreach effort
The agency also set up an informative Park Smart website to
communicate details about the program
In conjunction with program, NYCDOT worked with merchants to create
AM "delivery windows" to better accommodate goods deliveries.
OCR for page 110
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 113
Table 8. (Continued).
Location and Project New York City, Park Smart Parking Pricing (under implementation)
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
Park Smart is a voluntary program with no regulation or obligation to
Opportunities
participate; areas can opt in or stay out and this helps acceptance
NYCDOT plans to use a combination of pricing strategies and
incorporate emerging technology into program logistics
Barriers:
Businesses must be convinced that customers will face minimal
negative impacts from peak-period parking fees
Table 9. Portland, Oregon, Road User Fee Pilot Program--planning.
Location and Project Portland, Oregon, Road User Fee Pilot Program
(20062007)
RP Emergence Factors The direction for starting a pilot and creation of a Road User Fee (RUF)
Task Force came through the legislature in 2001
Pilot project would not have emerged if the bill had not passed--
Senator Bruce Starr played a visionary role and sponsored the initial
bill; Oregon governor has championed RP in the state
RUF Task Force decided on an integrated mileage-fee and congestion
pricing program
RP Relation to Planning Initial legislative direction for the pilot program (2001) did not reference
Processes any state planning processes
The ideas of mileage fees, congestion pricing, and tolling new capacity
entered the planning process in 2002 and the legislature influenced
ODOT's planning work through vision statements, etc.
Role of Air Quality, CMP, Planning process less relevant in implementing pilot program, but for
Planning Regulation and the next pilot project or an implementation of RP, it may become more
Guidance for RP Plan relevant because state planners now want to be involved, given the
new legislative direction for implementing RP
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs Passed HB 2001A (2009) with two key provisions--(1) allow ODOT to
in RP make the mileage-feebased RP pilot program permanent, and
(2) direct ODOT to implement a congestion pricing pilot within 3 years
ODOT worked with the RUF Task Force to design the program; ODOT
was the key implementing agency through Office of Innovative
Partnerships and Alternative Funding and worked with Portland State
University to survey traveler reactions and Oregon State University to
design technology for the system
State contributed $771,000 in matching funds to supplement FHWA's
grant from the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP)
Role of Federal Government The bulk of the funding for the pilot program came from the FHWA's
in RP VPPP through three targeted grants, totaling $2.1 million over 6 years;
the congestion pricing component was incorporated into the pilot
program as a requirement of this funding grant
Setting technical standards, supporting technical research, and
providing national funding and oversight to state-level mileage fee
programs is important
Public, Stakeholder 12-member Task Force was independent and structured to include
Involvement in RP Plans different interest groups--was set up by the governor and comprised 4
legislators, 2 from state, 6 others representing cities and communities,
highway user groups and academics; AAA and local petroleum industry
were brought in as advisers
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 111
114 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 9. (Continued).
Location and Project Portland, Oregon, Road User Fee Pilot Program
(20062007)
Three public hearings were held in first year of project planning; formal
presentations made to U.S.DOT, legislative committees of several
states, two national transportation commissions, and U.S. Secretary of
Transportation Mary Peters. ODOT also presented to citizen groups,
state DOTs, MPOs, and transportation advocacy groups inside and
outside Oregon
A reactive approach of "learn and modify" was used; in future, plan to
conduct focus groups first to see how the public would react to the
marketing messages
Media support or criticism depended on how well they were informed
about the key issues such as privacy; turned from critic to proponent of
the pilot program as ODOT responded to each one of the media and
public comments
The public was concerned about privacy and double paying; the original
plan called for a central billing system which was changed to billing at
the gas pump because of public fear of double paying
To deal with privacy issue (raised in the media), alterations were made
such that only mileage counts would be recorded and not actual
coordinates of travelers (these would be erased from the tracking
devices and not transferred to billing system). For a future
implementation, motorists will receive the opportunity to choose the
mileage counting device they prefer rather than have a government
agency choose for them.
Equity concerns came up with respect to urban vs. rural populations--
people typically do not perceive how much they pay for the gas tax and
that can be a significant amount
Learned that all project design details must be worked out and nothing
should be unknown before public communication begins
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
Believes that a national mileage-fee system could be designed and
Opportunities
implemented by volunteer states, with a policy oversight body to direct
pilot projects
Limited gas tax resources at state level are driving interest in Oregon's
experiment from all around the country; structural problems with gas tax
are similar in most states
Believes the initial implementations should be small and partial, starting
with electric vehicles and conditional voluntary adoptions where people
can elect to be in a mileage-fee system. Over time, the system should
become mandatory
ODOT has talked with U.S.DOT (RITA) about future pilot programs
Believes feds should play a stronger role in technical research, federal
funding of state pilot programs and implementations, and setting up a
national policy oversight body
Additional development and testing is on for flexible open platform
technology for future pilots, so that technologies or devices are not
specified; instead, standards are set for type of device that must be
used and how data must be transferred
ODOT's strong engagement with national policymaking bodies and
actors will help in future implementation plans as several major
implementation issues and policy questions have been addressed
Barriers:
State resources are typically limited, so charging systems should not
emerge state by state; instead system design should be at the national
scale
OCR for page 112
Interview Summaries Related to Planning for Road Pricing 115
Table 9. (Continued).
Location and Project Portland, Oregon, Road User Fee Pilot Program
(20062007)
Public perceptions of ODOT are mixed because it is a government
agency; it made strong efforts to not politicize the mileage-fee
experiment and enter the tangle of right vs. left
GPS-based mileage counting devices were given by ODOT to people
who participated in the pilot program; public perception of and familiarity
with GPS tracking technology required much more explanation; public
opinion is negative on the idea of imposing a mileage counter that also
acts as a transponder for congestion
Timing and state of the economy is important and affects how public will
respond; currently there is much more public scrutiny of how
government dollars are spent
Table 10. Puget Sound Region HOT lanes--planning.
Location and Project Puget Sound Region (Seattle), SR-167 HOT Lanes (opened in 2008)
and SR-520 (planned)
RP Emergence Factors Washington State Transportation Commission (appointed by governor)
authorized 7 potential tolling corridors; the legislation set up commission
with authority to set rates and charge tolls for revenue and traffic
management purposes, which would be implemented by state DOT
Urban Partnerships Agreement (UPA) and legislation authorizing tolling;
severe gap in funding for new SR-520 bridge led to decision to
implement tolls on existing bridge while new bridge is built
SR-520 tolls partly driven by slow revenues in economy and uncertain
trust fund; state gas tax has been raised multiple times, so tolling
appears to be the only way to raise funds
RP Relation to Planning PSRC has its own pricing task force that came into existence in late
Processes 1990s when previous transportation plan was being developed; task
force was reinvigorated for the current round of planning and it
introduced pricing options into the latest plan
Region has a Vision 2040 plan that focuses on mobility and demand
management to reduce need for capital improvements
2001 regional transportation plan included some discussion on tolling
and direction to explore potential but was not pursued further; currently
with Tacoma Narrows project running successfully, decline in gas tax
revenues, deterioration of infrastructure, and sustainability of
transportation being a key issue in 2040 plan, there is more support for
tolling
Important criteria/"attention-getters" in regional plan that support tolling:
(1) sustainable funding, (2) environmental issues, specifically climate
change, (3) congestion and mobility; plan sets out pricing and other
non-pricing options
Role of Air Quality, CMP, Current Moving Washington 10-year state plan includes SR-520 bridge
Planning Regulation and toll project to provide revenue for "strategic capacity" and for traffic
Guidance for RP Plan management; also includes language about funding projects using non-
traditional sources
As part of environmental review process, several pricing options for SR-
520 have been analyzed using integrated land use and transportation
models and benefitcost analysis with updated values of time, and toll
optimization models; revenues, air quality impacts, and traffic diversion
impacts were considered.
Key criteria in Moving Washington plan include reliability, travel time
savings, accident reduction, commuter choice, and emissions control;
both state and region have goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and drive-alone VMT
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for SR-520 released and
receiving public comment; no preferred alternative yet
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 113
116 Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development
Table 10. (Continued).
Location and Project Puget Sound Region (Seattle), SR-167 HOT Lanes (opened in 2008)
and SR-520 (planned)
Role of State DOT vs. MPOs For SR-520, legislature created Toll Implementation Committee
in RP (including MPO head, secretary of transportation, chair of transportation
commission) and gave authority to proceed with variable pricing
schemes (peak-period tolling)
Legislature has asked DOT to do tolling analysis similar to study done
for SR-520 to assess impacts on 4 additional tolling projects; along with
public outreach and engagement
State and PSRC (MPO) cooperated in planning for SR-520
Role of Federal Government Federal UPA grant has been important and will support tolling
in RP infrastructure (active traffic management, toll collection system on
existing bridge, transit); no other federal role or barriers.
All options in regional plan have different costs and are tied to adopted
revenue sources; PSRC is responsive to federal guidance for financial
constraint in the regional plan (while "unconstrained" projects can exist
outside the plan)
Public, Stakeholder SR-520 Tolling Implementation Committee has presented information to
Involvement in RP Plans more than 40 elected officials, jurisdictions, and stakeholder groups
during 2008, including meetings with community and civic groups, local
city councils and elected representatives; heavy media coverage; public
opinion generally in favor of tolling to fund new SR-520 bridge
Meetings targeted at low-income, minority, and "special needs" groups
to address environmental justice issues
Issue of "paying twice" has come up, raising questions about replacing
sales tax with user fees
"Scoping Process" on regional plan involved asking public and interest
groups for reactions to alternatives; over 1,000 comments were
received
SR-520 outreach also involved and pitched a model peer review group
to bolster the credibility of the planning process model
Issue of revenues has arisen--i.e., spending revenues where they are
raised (corridor) or across general transportation system, including
transit
Maximizing Attention to RP in Opportunities:
Planning--Barriers and
Public familiarity and success of new Tacoma Narrows bridge that
Opportunities
opened in 2007 with flat tolls was helpful for discussions on tolling on
SR-520 and elsewhere in state
Current economic climate has drawn attention to critical funding needs
and increased support for tolling
Barriers:
Concerns about "paying twice" and model credibility
