National Academies Press: OpenBook

Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing (2008)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion

« Previous: Chapter Three - Public Opinion Data on Tolling and Road Pricing
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Factors and Circumstances Affecting Public Opinion." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14151.
×
Page 46

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.

41 Today, traffic congestion is perceived as one of the most press- ing problems in high density or high growth areas. Addressing this issue generally involves some type of improvement in roadway infrastructure or capacity. Tolls and road pricing are interrelated with such solutions because of reliance on tolls as financing tools, and road pricing as traffic demand man- agement tools. We have now reached the situation where the major constraint on the successful implementation of tolling and road pricing relates largely to policy making (i.e., lack of stakeholder and political acceptability) rather than to techni- cal or administrative barriers. Examinations of historical data in fields outside of transportation have found a strong link between policy making and public opinion. Two separate studies found that in two-thirds of cases in which a proposed policy change resulted in legislative action, that action was in the direction preferred by majority public opinion (120,121). Prior empirical research in transportation indicates that public acceptance of tolls and road pricing is low—in spite of the perception of traffic problems as serious (1,6,122,123). These prior studies did not have the broad set and more recent data points of this synthesis from which to draw conclusions. With this information, it is possible to identify the factors and circumstances that affect public opinion, to examine trends in public opinion, and to derive crucial implications for future policy and planning in this area. PUBLIC OPINION ON PRICING Our review indicates that in the aggregate there is majority support for tolling and road pricing. Among all the surveys presented in chapter three, 56% indicated support for tolling or road pricing concepts (see Table 1). Opposition was encoun- tered in 31% of cases, and mixed results (i.e., no majority support or opposition) occurred in 13% of cases. The level of aggregate support for road pricing contrasts sharply with that found for tax-related initiatives. The aggregate level of sup- port for tax-related initiatives was 27%, with 60% opposed and 13% mixed. The results in Table 1 were derived by coding each of the surveys presented in chapter three on a 5-point scale of support or opposition (i.e., strongly support, support, mixed, oppose, strongly oppose). Is this valid? We acknowledge that the sam- ple of surveys is small and it was not randomly generated. The outcomes of a few surveys can have a big effect on the data and may render the data less representative of the universe of all surveys on these topics. Furthermore, we recognize that the results from the different surveys may have been measured on different scales and with different analysis designs. At the same time, great care was taken in the development of the sample of public opinion data presented in chapter three. We sampled for diversity, including a broad and diverse range of public opinion studies and used snowball sampling tech- niques to uncover rare or hard-to-find research studies. Have we represented the population well? It is hard to know how well we have done because a perfect listing of the universe does not exist. That said, and with consideration of the caveats associated with analyzing these data, we examined the gen- eral patterns of support and opposition to pricing according to various factors and contexts using the poll or survey data only. Also we have factored out the results related to tax- related initiatives in the following analyses. Methodological Factors Given that there is a link between policy making and public opinion, the quality of public opinion data is critical. A poorly administered poll or inaccurate survey can misrepresent actual public opinion and, in turn, influence future policy debates. A poll or survey is a method of gathering information from a sample of individuals within a particular group or population. This information is then used to draw conclusions about the entire group or population. The key to a representative survey is that the chance (or probability) of every unit (or individual) in the population being selected for the sample must be known and properly accounted for in the analysis of the results. If a sample is drawn by convenience, intercept, or other non- random methods, the resulting data are not governed by prob- ability theory. The data represent only the narrow slice of the group or population that was surveyed. A survey is also different from a focus group. Focus groups typically have eight to ten participants and therefore it would take many groups to build up a significant sample size. More importantly, focus group participants are rarely sampled by probability methods. Typically, they are recruited from a data- base or intercept methods. Focus groups may provide inter- esting insight for certain purposes, but they cannot be used to draw inferences about the larger population. Therefore, focus group results have not been included in our analyses of public opinion trends and patterns presented in this section. CHAPTER FOUR FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC OPINION

Several factors can affect the accuracy of survey results. Groves provided an excellent overview of the components of survey quality in which he classified errors in surveys into four main types (124): • Coverage errors, referring to the exclusion of some members of the study population from the sample frame. • Sampling errors, indicating the estimating quality of sam- ple statistics that are primarily a consequence of sample sizes and sample design. • Non-response errors, when certain individuals selected in a sample do not participate in the survey or fail to answer an item in the interview. • Measurement errors, relating to the discrepancy between an individual’s true opinions and the individual’s responses in a survey interview. The first two sources of error can be controlled through the way in which the sampling frame has been selected and the sample has been designed, and the latter two sources are intrinsically linked to the quality of the survey execution and the instrument design (125–127). Awareness of these errors and their sources is a way to identify surveys that have not been conducted scientifically. Such surveys include “opt-in” surveys in which respondents select themselves. Examples are polls on the Internet where visitors to websites are asked to vote on one issue or another. Push polls are another type of fake survey. A push poll is where, using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issue is planted in the minds of those being surveyed. Push polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion. Although there are many potential sources of error, surveys that are conducted according to sound scientific methods can provide highly accurate insights into public opinions. Understanding that the samples are small and that the char- acteristics of the public opinion data differ significantly, inter- esting findings in the level of support or opposition can be explained by methodology factors, including the validity of the research, its sponsor, the survey population, and question wording. Assessing the validity of the surveys presented in chapter three without full access to the documentation is challenging. However, available information, primarily sample size and sample type, were used to rate the validity of each survey. Nearly half (54%) of the polls or surveys were coded as hav- ing “high” validity, about one-third (30%) as having “moder- 42 ate” validity, and 16% were coded as “low.” We found public support for tolling in 59% of the studies coded as “high” valid- ity, compared with 61% of the “moderate” validity and 38% of the “low” validity cases. This finding adds credence to the gen- eral finding of majority support for tolling and road pricing. Differences in aggregate results were found based on the sponsor of the poll or survey. When the poll or survey was sponsored by a tolling entity or agency responsible for the project, support was significantly higher in the aggregate (70%) than opposition (22%). Aggregate support was higher than opposition in media-sponsored polls but by a smaller margin (54% to 46%). When it was sponsored by another organization (i.e., university or association), aggregate support (47%) was below the majority threshold, but still higher than opposition (34%). Mixed results (i.e., neither clear support nor opposition) were highest among surveys sponsored by organizations other than sponsoring agency (19%), followed by the media (8%). In surveys sponsored by the tolling or road pricing entity, there was either clear majority support or majority opposition. Polling and sponsoring agencies have a choice in the selec- tion of the respondents to be surveyed or interviewed. This analysis indicates that support and opposition vary depending on the type of respondent pool selected. For data representa- tive of “potential users,” aggregate support was significantly higher (74%) than opposition (15%). A similar outcome was observed with public opinion measures of registered voters— support was found in 71% of cases and opposition in 24%. However, for those polls or surveys that targeted the general public, a different pattern was observed. In these latter polls, support and opposition were equal in proportion at 42% each. The mixed results were highest among surveys of the general public (16%), followed by potential users (11%), and then registered voters (5%). Most of the polls or surveys did not include clarifying or additional information in the question wording that might influence public opinion. However, support was higher when this information was presented to respondents as part of the survey question, such as “would you support congestion if the money were used to prevent an increase in mass transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls?” Support for tolling was noted in 94% of these cases when additional information was provided, compared with 48% of cases in which no addi- tional information was presented as part of the survey ques- tion. Higgins reached this same conclusion in his article on public polling and congestion pricing (128). He points out that when congestion pricing is simply described as a way to reduce congestion with no other information, support is low. However, that support increases when the definition provides clarifying information or a description of benefits. Project- or Issue-Related Characteristics Our compiled public opinion data also supported analysis of differences in public opinion results based on project- or TABLE 1 PUBLIC OPINION ON PRICING VERSUS TAX-RELATED INITIATIVES Tolling or Road Pricing Tax-Related Initiative Majority Support 57% 27% Majority Opposition 31% 60% Neither Majority 13% 13% Total Percent 100% 100% Total Cases 103 15

43 issue-related characteristics, such as type of pricing, year, and context. Most of the surveys and polls compiled in this synthesis report (63%) were done in association with a specific project (i.e., pre- and post-surveys to evaluate the impact of the I-394 MnPass Lanes in Minneapolis, Minnesota). Other times public opinion was elicited in a general public opinion survey on mul- tiple issues (i.e., citizen survey for the Collier County, Florida government). Public opinion was more supportive when a spe- cific project or concept was targeted (62% of cases) versus gen- eral questioning on tolling or road pricing (48% of cases). Level of support or opposition varied according to the type of project on which public opinion was solicited (see Table 2). The notable standouts are cordon pricing and PPPs, both of which show higher opposition than support. Support was present in 32% of cordon tolling cases, and none of the PPP cases. Although support was higher than opposition for HOT lanes, express toll lanes, and toll roads, different pat- terns were found. Aggregate support was evidenced in 73% of HOT lane cases, 71% of toll road cases, and 62% of express toll lane cases. The spread between support and opposition was largest in the toll road surveys. Discussing trends in support and opposition is challenging because the sample sizes for any given year were quite small. In Figure 1 we have identified in parentheses the number of polls or surveys that were available for analysis by year. With these caveats in mind, we found a rise in support for pricing in the mid-1990s and a drop-off in support starting in 2002. Support averaged 70% of those cases before 2002. Subse- quent to 2002, support averaged 49% of cases. In addition, public opinion was much more polarized before 2003. The number of cases in these two time periods differed sig- nificantly, with 27 public opinion polls or surveys before 2002 and 76 afterward. This increase in the number of surveys or polls is indicative of the growing interest in tolling and road pricing as solutions for financing or congestion challenges. The drop-off in support may be associated with the type of pricing that was referenced in the public opinion research. The early surveys were done in association with the early cordon or area pricing experiments. In the mid-1990s to 2002, the types of projects being considered were traditional toll roads, express toll lanes, and HOT lanes. In more recent years, cordon tolling and PPP projects have been brought into the public sphere. One way of disentangling the trend data is to examine individual projects. Table 3 presents the trend data that were compiled in chapter three for several different types of proj- ects in different geographic areas. These trend data need to be considered carefully because they represent surveys con- ducted by different polling or survey agencies of different survey populations, representing different sample sizes and sampling approaches. Also, the manner in which the ques- tions were asked was not always the same across the surveys. Given all these caveats, there are still interesting findings. For a toll road that had yet to be built—the Foothill South Extension—public opinion was generally very stable across years—with support ranging from 54% to 59%. Clear major- ity support for the express toll lanes and HOT lanes projects continued after the roads began operation (SR 91, I-15, I-394). In Utah, where HOT lanes had not yet been built, support increased nearly 5 percentage points to the level of the support for the operating HOT lane projects. In London, support for area charging increased after the project was implemented. In New York City without area TABLE 2 PUBLIC OPINION BASED ON TYPE OF PRICING 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% <1998 (8) 1998-1999 (9) 2000-2001 (10) 2002-2003 (19) 2004-2005 (23) 2006-2007 (34) Majority Support No Majority Support FIGURE 1 Trends in support versus opposition to pricing. Cordon Tolling Public–Private Partnership Express Toll Lanes Traditional Toll Road HOT Lanes Majority Support 32% 0% 62% 71% 73% Majority Opposition 53% 60% 23% 26% 15% Neither Majority 16% 40% 15% 3% 12% Total Percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Cases 19 10 13 35 26

44 TABLE 3 PUBLIC OPINION TRENDS FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS Majority Support Majority Opposition No Majority Orange County, California—Foothill South Extension 1999—Transportation corridor agencies 75% Not reported Not reported 2001a—Transportation corridor agencies 54% Not reported 39% 2001—Public Policy Institute of California 59% 26% 15% 2002a—Transportation corridor agencies 58% 36% 5% 2003a—Transportation corridor agencies 53% Not reported Not reported 2004a—Transportation corridor agencies 57% 37% Not reported 20051—Transportation corridor agencies 57% 37% 6% Orange and Los Angeles Counties—SR 91 ETL 1995—California Polytechnic State University 62%–68% Not reported Not reported 1996—California Polytechnic State University 60%–82% Not reported Not reported 1996–1997—California Polytechnic State University 60%–81% Not reported Not reported 1999—California Polytechnic State University 50%–75% Not reported Not reported San Diego, California—I-15 HOT Lanes 1996—SANDAG 66% Not reported Not reported 1997—Wave 1: San Diego State University Foundation for SANDAG 56%–95% Not reported Not reported 1998—Wave 2: San Diego State University Foundation for SANDAG 64%–94% Not reported Not reported 1999—Wave 4: San Diego State University Foundation for SANDAG 58%–88% Not reported Not reported 1999—Wave 5: San Diego State University Foundation for SANDAG 70%–88% Not reported Not reported 2001—SANDAG 66% 28% Not reported 2005— SANDAG 58% 14% Not reported Minneapolis, Minnesota—I-394 MnPASS HOT Lanes 2004—Humphrey Institute, Univ. of Minnesota 63% 27% 10% 2005—Humphrey Institute, Univ. of Minnesota 59% 29% 12% 2006—Humphrey Institute, Univ. of Minnesota 65% 22% 13% Salt Lake City, Utah—HOT Lanes 2005—Utah Department of Transportation 56% Not reported Not reported 2006—Utah Department of Transportation 61% Not reported Not reported London, England—Area Charging 1999—Government Office for London 53% 36% 11% 2006—Transport for London 60% Not reported Not reported New York City—Area Charging 2006—Tri-State Transportation Campaign 44% 45% 12% 2007—Quinnipiac University Poll (January) 31% 62% 7% 2007—Quinnipiac University Poll (June) 31% 52% 17% Statewide New Jersey—Lease to Private Interests 2007—AAA Mid-Atlantic Chapter (February) 20% 56% 24% 2007—Rutgers–Eagleton Poll (August) Not reported 61% Not reported Statewide Pennsylvania—Lease to Private Interests 2007—Quinnipiac University Poll (May) 44% 42% 14% 2007—Quinnipiac University Poll (August) 40% 47% 13% aPublic opinion after pro/con arguments for extending the highway have been presented to respondents as part of the interview. SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; ETL = express toll lane. Project

45 charging in operation, support decreased over time, presum- ably as the issue has been discussed more and more in the pub- lic sphere. According to Habermas (129), the public sphere is “a network for communicating information and points of view,” which eventually transforms them into a public opin- ion. Without the actual experience with congestion charging as in London, public opinion is formed based on information (even misinformation) that is shared and gained in the public sphere. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, opposition to leas- ing the state’s turnpikes to private interests increased over time, perhaps for the same reasons cited earlier for the New York City case. A spokesperson for New Jersey noted that “the public is not well-served when public opinion is tested before the Corzine administration has made any proposal.” One final way to interpret the compiled data is to examine differences by geography. Certainly, some geographic regions in the United States have more experience than others with tolling and road pricing (see Table 4). Different types of pro- jects have been introduced in different regions. The polls and surveys in the western United States have resulted in support for pricing to a much greater degree than opposition. The West also has the longest history with pricing initiatives. Pub- lic opinion support for pricing in the Midwest is also strongly apparent. Public support is less evident in the South, where there is less history with road pricing and there was the intro- duction of many new pricing initiatives after 2003. In the Northeast, public support is also mixed. This is likely the result of the types of new initiatives that are being introduced. THEMES IN PUBLIC OPINION RESULTS Data were also analyzed qualitatively; that is, extracting the broad themes in public opinion results. These themes can also be thought of as the “lessons learned” in garnering sup- port for or raising opposition to road pricing initiatives. Eight general themes have been identified. The themes are supported with specific data from the surveys and the focus groups pre- sented in chapter three. Quotes from respondents in the focus groups have been pulled out because they represent the “voice of the people.” 1. The Public Wants to See the Value When a concrete benefit is linked to the idea of tolling or charging for road usage (e.g., reducing congestion in an area where congestion is a problem) as opposed to tolling in the abstract, the public support of tolling is higher. Support is related to perceived benefits by users and non-users. The pub- lic is comprised of individuals who may value the benefits differently. Some individuals may be concerned only about their own self-interest, others may be willing to accept the tolling or road pricing scheme because society or their com- munity are better off, whereas still others may need to per- ceive the tolling or road charging scheme as benefiting both themselves and their communities. In Edinburgh, non-car users gave a cordon tolling proposal clear majority support, whereas among car users there was clear majority opposition, indicating a clear case of self-interest affecting public opinion. In Atlanta, focus group participants believed that HOT lanes gave them, personally, another viable transportation option. “I think it offers more choices. It gives me benefits—I can get to places faster.” An I-15 focus group respondent (an HOV user) saw personal and social value in the ExpressPass lanes, “when they opened [the lanes] to single drivers I looked at it as reducing congestion on the regular lanes.” In London, public support for the Central London Congestion Charge has increased as the scheme has been proven to improve air quality and reduced levels of harmful emissions and particulates contributing to poor health and climate change—evidence of support based on a larger public good. Support for congestion pricing in London has definitely improved with awareness of the scheme and as the positive impacts have been visible and reported. In the survey of New Yorkers, respondents who found congestion pricing to be a good idea cited several factors that indicated a range of self- and social-interest factors—reduce traffic, traffic jams, and congestion; increase use of public transit; decrease unnecessary cars, trucks, and people in the area; bring increased revenue to the city; and reduce pollution. Many individuals who voiced opposition to the road pricing con- cept in the latter survey and others cited in chapter three did so because they believed that there was “no value.” The tolls or charges “wouldn’t solve the problem.” 2. The Public Wants to React to Tangible and Specific Examples When public opinion on tolling is measured in the context of a specific project as opposed to a general principle, the level of support is higher. Traffic problems must be evident, and it must be demonstrated that road pricing or tolling of the specific facil- ity is the best way to handle the problems for users as well as non-users. Of the general issue polls presented in chapter three, most indicated mixed support or majority opposition to the tolling or road pricing proposal. In California, the public did not want to increase the number of the state’s toll roads. In San Antonio, half of the individuals polled were against toll roads. In a U.S. national poll, one-third or less supported any of the road pricing concepts presented during the survey. On the other hand, majority support was found for specific projects such as SR 91, I-15 ExpressLanes, and I-394 HOT lanes. In the Miami Value Pricing Focus Groups in 2002, most respondents said that they would likely use the proposed express lanes, and that they “appreciated the opportunity to have real choice as opposed to current conditions where the available choices all involve congested routes in the peak periods.” TABLE 4 PUBLIC OPINION BASED ON U.S. GEOGRAPHY Northeast Midwest South West Majority Support 36% 64% 44% 84% Majority Opposition 36% 27% 32% 13% No Majority 27% 9% 24% 3% Total Percent 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Cases 11 11 25 38

Road pricing should be perceived as a choice not as a kind of a punishment. In many of the European examples in chap- ter three, support was higher when road pricing was put forth as part of a comprehensive policy package of road and pub- lic transit investments. In an Orange County (California) sur- vey, the most persuasive argument for the Foothill South toll road was the “need for an alternative to I-5.” It is probably for this reason that low-income respondents tend to be support- ive of tolling and road charging concepts, as evidenced in evaluation studies in California and Minnesota. Regardless of their economic circumstances, they appreciate having the choice of paying to use uncongested lanes or roadways. 3. The Public Cares About the Use of the Revenues As Higgins ascertained, use of tolling revenues is a key deter- minant to acceptance of rejection of congestion pricing (128). When the perceived beneficiaries of tolling revenues are spe- cial interest groups (private companies or investors), public support for tolling is lower. In Indiana, more than half of those polled were against the lease of the Indiana Toll Road. Most opposed it because of foreign control; others were against private control of a public asset. In New Jersey, respondents were against the sale of the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to pay down the state’s debt. However, they were more supportive when the money was used to fund trans- portation infrastructure in the state. In a similar vein, respon- dents in a Quinnipiac University Poll (2007) were more sup- portive of the congestion charging proposal for New York City “if the money were used to prevent an increase in mass tran- sit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls.” Support tends to be higher when revenues are used for highway infrastructure or public transit improvements and/or to complete necessary construction faster. In many of the Euro- pean cordon pricing trials such as Cambridge, England, pricing was not viewed as acceptable as much as the public transport improvements that could be funded with the revenues. One respondent in an I-15 focus group in California said, “Keep it on the highway. I wouldn’t want to use those funds for some other program.” Participants in the Travel Choices Study focus groups in Washington State were very clear that “revenue col- lected should fund transportation, as opposed to general gov- ernment.” “The legislature should have hands off. They have a way of getting in there and spending money on other stuff. [Tolls] should be for transportation only.” In focus group dis- cussions on HOT lanes in Denver, there was general agreement that revenues should not be linked to specific agencies but to specific uses such as “bus services or roadway improvements.” 4. The Public Learns from Experience Support from a majority of citizens often cannot be expected from the outset. When the opportunity to use tolled facilities already exists, public support of tolling is higher than when or 46 where tolling is simply a possibility for the future. In Chicago, the majority were willing to pay more to maintain and recon- struct the Illinois State Toll Authority at the risk of failing to live up to the system’s bond obligations, because most indi- viduals believed that “tollways were a good value for the money.” Experiences from several cities show that support tends to increase with exposure to the concept of tolling. In Oslo, Sweden, and London, support for cordon tolling increased after the pricing program was implemented. How- ever, it must be recognized that building support is a long-term, continuous process that should not stop after implementation of the pricing scheme. In the SR 91, I-15, and I-394 HOT lane evaluations, support remained high and even increased slightly the longer respondents had to experience the benefits. Positive experiences with tolling and road pricing can also be exported from one area of the country to another through residential mobility. Among focus group participants in Central Texas where there were no priced roads at the time, most participants had used toll roads and reported good experiences in when traveling in other areas of the country, including Chicago; Houston; Dallas; and Washington, D.C. “The roads are better patrolled” and attract “a different kind of driver.” 5. The Public Uses Knowledge and Information Available When informed opinion is guided by means of objective explanation of the conditions and mechanics of tolling and the pros and cons of tolling, public support of tolling is higher than when there is no context for how tolling works. In Orlando, focus group participants were initially negative about the concept of adding tolls to new lanes on I-4, but eventually most said that they “use the Express Lanes for at least some trips.” Positive reaction to the plan came as a result of the moderator conveying the full rationale for why the tolled lanes would be necessary and carefully presenting key details of the concept. In surveys in both Denver and Alameda County, support for HOT lane projects increased after there was information and clarification on how the HOT lanes worked. In San Diego, equity concerns (i.e., fairness of tolls for lower-income drivers) within focus groups relating to the I-15 managed lanes dissolved and support for the proj- ect strengthened when participants received clarifying infor- mation on the features of the project. These types of situa- tions may also explain why the public sometimes appears to have an attitude-behavior inconsistency; that is, expressing negative attitudes about tolling and road pricing as theoreti- cal constructs, but using the priced facility when it opens. 6. The Public Believes in Equity but Wants Fairness. Public opposition of tolling is higher where there is perceived unfairness. Those in opposition to pricing projects in Min- neapolis, Atlanta, and Denver, among others, tended to cite the characteristic of being “unfair” as a reason for considering

47 these proposals to be a “bad idea.” In Atlanta, respondents were more supportive of proposals that would toll vehicles with as many as three individuals (HOV-4) than of propos- als that would toll vehicles with two individuals (HOT-3). HOT-3 was perceived as penalizing carpoolers, whereas almost everyone would be tolled in HOT-4. Focus group respondents were not generally supportive of peak period pricing. In PANYNJ groups, it was mentioned that peak period pricing is “unfair to commuters.” Fifty-nine percent agreed it was a good idea to vary toll rates during different times of day to help improve traffic congestion, but only 26% agreed it was fair to charge higher bridge and tunnel tolls during peak travel periods. In Miami, focus group participants also believed that peak pricing would “unfairly penalize commuters.” On the other hand, the Attitudinal Panel Survey evaluating the I-15 ExpressPass program found a high level of support for the program, along with a high rating of the fairness of the pro- gram for regular and carpool lane users. Also encapsulated in this perception is the notion that it is unfair for individuals to have to “pay for something that they have gotten for free in the past.” In San Diego focus groups, one participant voiced the concern of many in other studies, “I’ve paid once for the lanes, and now I have to pay again. That’s unfair.” This also relates to why having an “alterna- tive cost-free route” is so important for public support or why support for tolling new roads and bridges is higher than for tolling existing facilities. The public needs to be reassured that the government is not disrespecting people or treating them unfairly by double billing. Although equity was raised by at least one individual in many of the focus groups cited in chapter three, in most the idea was raised as a rhetorical question, “Would the lanes be used only by the wealthy?” In many groups, participants such as the following quoted from Dallas appeared to agree that decisions on whether to use such lanes “revolve around peo- ple’s preferences; namely, if a person wants the convenience badly enough, she or he will be willing to pay for it.” In San Antonio focus groups, there was general agreement that “wealthy drivers would use a managed lane facility more often, but that it would benefit everyone to have a choice of using or not using the lane.” In London and other European cordon tolling projects and proposals, the use of the revenues to improve public transit was considered a way of making the project “more fair” for low-income constituents. 7. The Public Wants Simplicity When the mechanics of tolling or other user fee programs are simple, clear, and therefore easy to understand, public support of tolling is higher than in situations where there is a high level of complexity in how pricing would be applied. There were two failed cordon tolling attempts in Hong Kong. The alterna- tives tested in both attempts were comprised of complex pric- ing structures and numerous charging locations. In a statewide survey in Oregon, a variety of ideas for funding highways was tested. Opposition was lower for the simplest idea (i.e., toll roads, 68%) than for more complex ideas (i.e., a per-household highway access fee, 91% and a mileage fee, 81%). In South Florida, there were several focus groups held in which partic- ipants were initially negative about managed lanes because so few fully understood the concept. Once participants under- stood the concept, most believed that it addressed some of their personal needs, as well as traffic issues in the study corridor. In focus groups around Washington State, there was a gen- eral apprehension of a statewide tolling system because of its complexity and fears of abuse or fraud. Some participants in the focus groups actually preferred the gas tax as a revenue instru- ment rather than the mileage-based system using global posi- tioning system and cell phone technology that was tested in the study. “I would rather pay a higher gas tax than [have] another system to keep track of.” Public response to the idea of dynamic variable pricing also is influenced by its complexity. Focus group respondents in California referring to I-15 believed that the variable price “introduced too much uncertainty into an already complex system.” One participant remarked, “What’s the price today? You got to worry about the guy in front of you and the guy in back of you . . . it’s too much.” 8. The Public Favors Tolls over Taxes Although there are some instances of the surveyed public pre- ferring tax increases over tolling, these are isolated instances. The quantitative analysis depicted in Table 1 indicates that in the aggregate across all of the data presented in this synthe- sis the public prefers tolling over tax increases. In Maine, sur- vey respondents were given a list of alternatives for funding a new highway or bridge. Fifty-six percent supported estab- lishing tolls, 16% increasing the gas tax, and 10% would can- cel the project. Generally, the same distribution was found on a question relating to fixing a highway or a bridge for safety reasons. One individual in Minneapolis was quoted as say- ing, “I like tolls because I wouldn’t use them and I wouldn’t pay for it. We’ve got enough taxes.” In New Jersey, nearly two-thirds of voters opposed raising tolls on the state’s turn- pikes to pay off state debt. However, when asked to choose between raising tolls, cutting services, or raising taxes, more individuals opted for raising tolls (44%, 28%, and 9%, respec- tively). In a statewide survey in California, respondents favored HOT lanes, tolls roads, and express toll lanes over gas and sales tax increases. Likewise, in a national AAA sur- vey, the public supported adding tolls on new and existing roads and highway lanes over increasing motor- and non-fuel taxes or imposing a vehicle-mile tax. In focus groups in Central Texas, the general consensus for funding new roads was that it should not come from taxes. “Taxes are already too high.” Also, unlike the revenue generated from tolls, participants in focus groups often believed that their gas taxes went to help fund projects in other parts of the state. A common theme was “we’re not get- ting our fair share.”

Next: Chapter Five - Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research »
Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 377: Compilation of Public Opinion Data on Tolls and Road Pricing explores how the public feels about tolls and road pricing, examines public opinion concerning charging for the use of roads, and highlights factors associated with the acceptance or rejection of road pricing.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!