Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes (2020)

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.

8 This chapter gathers and summarizes agency and project experiences with implementing pricing on managed lanes. The sources of material are from published academic literature, design guidance, media reports (e.g., published and online media), and project evaluations. Most of the research was identified through the use of online, web-based searches—including the use of the Transport Research International Documentation database maintained by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Additionally, state and agency representatives provided website links to project descriptions, evaluations, and research reports. Goals and Objectives Although there are still challenges with managed lanes, they can be an effective strategy to alleviate congestion, and many agencies are considering implementing them (Perez et al., 2011). Managed lanes can have a wide variety of goals and objectives, including congestion mitigation, transit enhancement, trip reliability, and even revenue generation. Managed lanes use eligibility, price, or accessibility to achieve these goals. Goals should reflect stakeholder input, legislative requirements, and public acceptance (Perez et al., 2011). From the beginning, the overall goals are frequently set in directives from state legislatures and should be established long before the project enters the design and construction phase (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). NCHRP Report 694: Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Congestion Pricing Proj- ects states the goals for managed lanes and includes improvements for traffic performance, revenue, travel behavior, and transit (Perez et al., 2011). The report also indicates that the goals for managed lanes tend to vary based upon the type of facility. For example, for variably priced managed lanes, where only one or more of the lanes on a facility are priced with variable rates, the most common goal is traffic performance because the variable toll uses price to maintain a certain level of service. As an example, Florida’s 95 Express has the primary goal of congestion reduction and trip reliability (Perez et al., 2011). In comparison, the most common goal for traditional toll facilities (where all of the lanes are priced) is revenue generation because most toll facilities are financed by selling toll revenue bonds, and the bond covenants require a specific debt-coverage ratio. For instance, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s (PANYNJ’s) managed lane facilities have a primary goal of revenue generation to cover operation and maintenance costs and to finance capital projects (Perez et al., 2011). On the other hand, NCHRP Report 694 states that specific goals for priced managed lanes tend to vary based on the region (Perez et al., 2011). As an illustration, in Orange County, California, the 91 Express Lanes’ tolls vary by time of day to consistently allow for speeds of 60 to 65 miles per hour in the managed lanes. In San Diego, California, the tolls on the 1-15 Express Lanes use C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review

Literature Review 9 dynamic tolling to not only optimize speeds in the express lanes but also to ease congestion in the parallel general-purpose lanes (Perez et al., 2011). In Texas, a comprehensive review of managed lanes reveals goals of providing increased travel choices, increasing speed, reducing delay, improving reliability, and generating revenue (Wood et al., 2016). In comparison, in Colorado, the tolls on managed lanes are primarily for congestion relief and revenue generation (Toor and Salisbury, 2014). When goals and objectives are established up front, priced managed lane projects tend to be more successful (Perez et al., 2012b). Initially, priced managed lane projects did not signifi- cantly emphasize a concept of operations, which resulted in poor goals and objectives for the projects. Consequently, poor goals and objectives translated to insufficient performance metrics and measurements (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). The concept of operations is a formal document that establishes and defines the characteristics, design, policies, requirements, and technology of the priced managed lane project. Overall, the concept of operations provides the framework for the project, which guides goals and objectives, performance metrics and measurements, and more (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). The level of emphasis for the concept of operations has notably changed over time. Today, priced managed lane projects significantly emphasize the concept of operations up front (Perez et al., 2012b). By clearly establishing goals and objec- tives in the beginning, projects tend to be more successful because the framework is amal- gamated. As an example, without clearly established goals and objectives, North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) faced implementation challenges as it struggled to explain the purpose of its I-77 Express Lanes (NCDOT, Stakeholder Interview, May 7, 2019). The general public is profoundly skeptical and suspicious about the purpose and handling of the revenue from priced managed lanes. Public support for managed lanes is stronger on a national level when revenues are used for highway infrastructure, public transit improve- ments, or necessary construction (Zmud and Arce, 2008). NCHRP Synthesis 377 evaluated over a hundred pieces of literature and revealed that public support for tolling was consistently higher when tolling was discussed in connection with specific and definite goals, as opposed to talking about tolling abstractly (Zmud and Arce, 2008). However, some members of the public may never support tolls on existing highways and interstates, according to a national survey by the HNTB Corporation (HNTB Companies, 2017). The online survey consisted of 1,027 randomly sampled adult Americans nationwide who received an email invitation to participate. Approx- imately 20% of the respondents reported they would never support tolls on existing inter- states. Of those respondents who did support tolling, the support was most substantial when connected with goals of reducing congestion and improving safety. The goals of adding vehicle capacity and adding transit capacity also had a high level of support (HNTB Companies, 2017). Ultimately, research shows that successfully implemented managed lane projects had clearly identified goals and objectives that were articulated during development and imple- mentation to demonstrate the value of the facility. Tolling Policies Federal Tolling Policies In the beginning of the 20th century, roads were designed to be largely toll-free and toll- prohibitive (Kirk, 2016). Roads that were constructed under the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 were restricted from implementing tolls (Internet Archive Library, n.d.). The United States Code Title 23, enacted in 1958, generally prohibits tolls on federal-aid highways. However, in the last several decades, special programs and statutes created a wide variety of exceptions to allow tolling on facilities (Kirk, 2016).

10 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes Specifically, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 permitted tolling on noninterstate federal-aid highways. For existing roads and bridges, tolling was per- mitted after reconstruction. Additionally, ISTEA authorized the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP). The VPPP encouraged up to 15 pilot programs with congestion pricing (Essenmacher, 2018). After approximately a decade, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) both permitted tolling on HOV lanes (Kirk, 2016). TEA-21 specifically authorized the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP). ISRRPP encouraged up to three states to implement tolls on an existing interstate facility as long as the toll revenue is directed toward necessary reconstruction and rehabilitation on the interstate corridor (Essenmacher, 2018). More recently, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) permitted tolling of new interstate system routes, route extensions, and additional lane capacity (Kirk, 2016). The most recent reauthorization bill to pass Congress is the Fixing America’s Surface Trans- portation Act (FAST Act). The FAST Act noticeably expanded grants for pilot programs and increased the opportunity to enact tolls on federal-aid facilities, such as interstate highways (Frankel, 2017). The FAST Act, among other things, allowed over-the-road buses to use certain toll facilities with the same rates, terms and conditions, and treatment as public transporta- tion vehicles (American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 2016; FHWA, 2016b). Additionally, the FAST Act required priced managed lane operators to consult with the relevant metropolitan planning organization (MPO) regarding the facility. However, the provision only applies in cases where the priced managed lane is located on the interstate system within a metro politan planning area (FHWA, 2016a). There are two key sections within United States Code Title 23 that pertain to federal-aid managed lane projects with tolls: Section 129 and Section 166 (FHWA, n.d.a). These sections were substantially revised after the passage of federal laws such as ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, TEA-21, MAP-21, and the FAST Act (Kirk, 2016). Currently, Section 129 of Title 23 defines ownership, limitations on use of revenues, special rules for funding and loans, and authori- zation for federal participation (Cornell Law School, 2015). For compliance with Section 129, the transportation authority must conduct or provide an annual audit of the toll facility records to FHWA (FHWA, n.d.b). For FHWA, the purpose of the audit is to validate compliance with toll revenue use restrictions. For the transportation authority, the audit provides operational details and information. Additionally, Section 129 authorizes tolling in any new capacity. As an example, tolling is authorized in cases such as, but not limited to, the initial construction of a new highway, bridge, or tunnel, or the reconstruction of a highway (other than an inter- state; Kirk and Mallett, 2013). On the other hand, Section 166 of Title 23 states that transportation agencies can convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes if there is an endorsement from the local MPO (Pesesky et al., 2018). If a transportation agency converts the HOV lanes to HOT lanes, the transportation authority of the project must submit an annual report to FHWA to comply with Section 166, demonstrating that the facility is not currently degraded and that the facility will not become degraded in the near future (FHWA, 2016a). FHWA responds to the annual report by providing the managed lane with a yearly certification report if it meets the criteria regarding degradation. FHWA will accept the report if it shows the facility is performing as required, or they can ask for clarifica- tion if it is unclear. Should the annual report indicate the facility has become degraded, FHWA will ask for a remediation plan within 180 days. Section 166 considers a facility degraded if “vehicles operating on the facility are failing to maintain a minimum average operating speed 90% of the time over a consecutive 180-day period during morning or evening weekday peak hour periods (or both)” (Pesesky et al., 2018).

Literature Review 11 Once a managed lane facility becomes degraded, the regulation requires that the facility be brought into compliance by “increasing the occupancy requirement, varying the toll charged to vehicles to reduce demand, increasing the available capacity of the HOV facility or dis continue allowing non-HOV vehicles.” Relatedly, if the facility becomes degraded, the transportation agency must submit a remediation plan to FHWA within 180 days of the determination (Baldwin, 2009). FHWA will approve or disapprove of the remediation plan. If the transportation agency is unsuccessful in bringing the facility into compliance, FHWA may enact appropriate program sanctions until performance is no longer degraded (Baldwin, 2009). Tolling projects must, according to federal law, consider environmental and equity concerns due to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pesesky et al., 2018). For example, NEPA requires compliance with widespread topics such as air quality, access, safety, transportation choice, mobility, community cohesion, and the like. NEPA also requires public engagement before the decision-making process (Pesesky et al., 2018). According to NCHRP Research Report 860, highway construction projects are required to comply with NEPA since they tend to receive federal-aid funds and have the poten- tial to affect the environment. Specific state policies may not permit categorical exclusions for managed lanes that implement tolling (Pesesky et al., 2018). Similarly, the report highlights that federal policies such as Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require tolling projects to consider the project’s effects on minority and low-income populations as well as other discriminatory grounds (Pesesky et al., 2018). Accordingly, the FHWA Environmental Justice Reference Guide notes that FHWA may not approve a tolling project if the tolling project does not “work with the environmental justice populations to avoid, minimize or otherwise mitigate” the impact of the project (Pesesky et al., 2018). State, Regional, and Local Tolling Policies In addition to federal laws and policies that affect tolling projects, many states have more extensive review requirements related to the environment and environmental justice issues (Pesesky et al., 2018). According to NCHRP Research Report 860, review requirements at the state levels are, in some instances, stricter than federal requirements (Pesesky et al., 2018). As an illustration, the State of Minnesota uses the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, and the State of California uses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although CEQA resembles NEPA, it goes even further than NEPA by narrowing the allowable exclusions and extends a prioritization of the environment (Baldwin, 2009). Overall, states and regions have some leeway to create successful tolling projects. As such, tolling policies vary extensively across states and regions (Wood et al., 2016). For instance, the State of California implements the Clean Air Vehicle Decal Program, which authorizes a limited number of stickers for plug-in vehicles and an unlimited number for full battery electric vehicles to allow single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use within HOV and HOT lanes (Tal and Nichols, 2014). This correlates to California’s intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Deakin, 2011). On the other hand, LA Metro assists low-income Los Angeles County residents by waiving their monthly account maintenance fees for electronic toll tags and issuing a one-time $25 credit to their account (Wood et al., 2016). This program correlates to Los Angeles’s particular interest in addressing equity concerns (Sanchez and Brenman, 2008). Most states have provisions in their state codes that address tolls for transportation projects, inclusive of definitions for key terms, legal powers (such as the authority to establish and adjust tolls, invest in bonds, issue bonds, etc.), administrative requirements, and relationships with other entities (FHWA, 2018). State governments may promulgate legislation that stipulates

12 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes hard caps on outstanding debt, details the use of electronic toll collection (ETC) systems, and defines the requirements for account holders (Perez et al., 2012a). Toll Exemptions Some priced managed lanes have toll exemptions or toll discounts. They tend to depend on occupancy requirements, time of day, vehicle type (e.g., low-emission, motorcycle, transit bus), and method of payment (e.g., ETC system, cash; Perez et al., 2011). According to NCHRP Report 694, some states provide toll exemptions for alternatively fuel vehicles, hybrid vehicles, plug-in vehicles, or low-emission vehicles to encourage alternatively fueled vehicles (Perez et al., 2011). For example, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) issued 2,000 permits to hybrid vehicles in 2008 that waived the occupancy requirements for hybrid vehicles on HOV and HOT lanes (CDOT, n.d.). Comparably, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) exempts qualified vehicles from paying tolls on HOT lanes (Hartman, 2014). Synthesis research demonstrated that the public may be incentivized to purchase an alter- natively fueled vehicle for the explicit purpose of using the managed lanes to circumvent con- gested areas as an SOV. The Institute of Transportation Studies surveyed over 3,500 California plug-in vehicle buyers in 2013, and over one-third of plug-in vehicle buyers stated their primary motive to buy a plug-in car was to use managed lanes as an SOV (Tal and Nichols, 2014). Eli- gibility was incentivizing to participants because it provided the potential to save time. How- ever, allowing alternatively fueled vehicles with single-occupancy status to freely use managed lanes has the potential to increase congestion, reduce revenue, and diminish the ability to control traffic (Tal and Nichols, 2014). As such, some states are now rolling back these occu- pancy exemptions because alternatively fueled vehicles crowd managed lanes (Wood et al., 2016). For instance, Virginia DOT (VDOT) recently ended most of the toll exemptions for hybrid vehicles using HOV and HOT lanes because of concerns about the reduced ability to manage traffic (VDOT, 2019). The I-10 Katy Freeway Managed Lanes demonstrate the importance of managing vehicle eligibility (Burris et al., 2014). By managing eligibility, transportation authorities can accom- modate high volumes while maintaining free-flow traffic speeds. The Katy Freeway Managed Lanes initially started as an HOV lane. Initially, the single-lane HOV lane on the Katy Free- way only allowed buses and authorized vanpools, which resulted in excess capacity available on the HOV lane. Over time, the operator of the facility, Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), relaxed occupancy requirements, transitioning from allowing HOV4+ to HOV2+ within the HOV lane. Once METRO loosened vehicle eligibility requirements, the lanes became overutilized. To quell the overutilization, METRO tightened vehicle eligibility requirements. To further improve the corridor by managing demand and congestion, the HOV lane added tolling in the form of a HOT lane to provide operators an additional means to influence supply (Perez and Sciara, 2003). Toll exemptions can also present significant challenges (Wood et al., 2016). In Maryland, a multiscale analysis of an HOV-to-HOT lane conversion found that low-income travelers, if they do not meet toll exemptions, tend to avoid the tolls by shifting onto congested general- purpose lanes or alternative routes (Fan, Erdogan, and Welch, 2016). Once an HOV-to-HOT lane conversion occurs, the percentage of carpoolers on the corridor naturally decreases (Burris et al., 2014). Before each conversion, SOVs are not eligible to use the HOV facility. The con- version grants SOVs eligibility to use the facility upon payment of a toll. Many travelers are consequently provided with new options for travel. Therefore, HOV-to-HOT lane conversions tend to adversely affect the rate of carpooling because users pay to travel as a single-occupancy vehicle (Burris et al., 2014).

Literature Review 13 Performance Management Performance Metrics To assess priced managed lane projects, project sponsors use performance measures and metrics (Perez et al., 2011). Performance metrics are used to quantifiably calculate performance measures, which are then presented as a statistic. The statistics can help maintain traffic opera- tions, suggest toll rate adjustments, improve the forecasting ability for traffic and revenue, satisfy legislatively mandated reporting requirements, and so forth (Perez et al., 2011). Priced managed lane projects do not encompass a one-size-fits-all package. Each priced managed lane has unique goals and objectives, to which performance metrics can be tailored to fit (Perez et al., 2011). However, common standards for performance metrics, as well as trends for useful and effective metrics, exist (Lui et al., 2011). Overall, essential performance metrics typically include passenger-miles traveled, total-miles traveled, vehicle-miles traveled, vehicle occupancy rate, person throughput, vehicle throughput, travel-time predictability, travel-time reliability, level of service, average delay, duration of congestion, incident by severity, incident by type, toll revenue, and more (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning [CMAP], 2013). To achieve many of these metrics, measures of volume and speed are necessary (Lui et al., 2011). To avoid gaps in the data and ensure accurate com- parisons, transportation authorities may measure the volume and speed on the general-purpose lane as well as on the priced managed lane. However, retrofitting additional loop detectors on the general-purpose lane adds increased costs to the project, which may present the need for trade-offs between other features (Lui et al., 2011). The collection method to measure speed-based performance measures varies by the level of investment. Operators typically use in-pavement loop detectors, microwave sensors, infrared sensors, or video sensors that can also measure other performance metrics (CMAP, 2013). Operators can collect speed-based performance measures at a minimum investment by using one detector for the entire corridor, but several conditions on the corridor must be met for only one detector to be sufficient. It is preferred to have multiple locations with a loop detector due to possible operational issues and other factors. Although not required, the optimal fre- quency is every 0.25 to 0.5 miles (Goodin et al., 2013c). Typically, a priced managed lane project is considered to be operating efficiently if the average travel speeds reach at least 45 miles per hour during peak hours at least 90% of the time (Goodin et al., 2013c). Operators usually calculate the number of days per month that the facility operates below a set-speed threshold, which suggests the level of travel reliability (Goodin et al., 2013c). The metric of person throughput is particularly important because it reflects and evaluates the effectiveness of serving individuals during changes in mobility and congestion (Streisfeld, 2018). Person throughput measures the number of people traveling on the corridor among all modes. Typically, a priced managed lane project is considered to be operating efficiently if the person throughput is over, on average, 6,000 people per day (Lui et al., 2011). For vehicular through- put, many priced managed lane projects desire approximately 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane and have a maximum flow threshold of approximately 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane, although the specific number varies per facility (CMAP, 2013). For example, the Harris County Toll Road Authority has a maximum threshold of 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane for its I-10 Katy Freeway Managed Lanes facility, while the Orange County Transportation Authority has a maximum threshold of 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane for its 91 Express Lanes facility (Perez et al., 2011). Operators also place significant emphasis on vehicle occupancy rates to determine the effect of eligibility restrictions and carpooling initiatives (Goodin et al., 2013c). For priced managed lane projects, transportation authorities target a minimum of 2,900 HOVs per day and a minimum monthly average occupancy ratio of 2.20 people per vehicle (Goodin et al., 2013c).

14 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes Performance metrics tend to significantly vary based on the performance goals of the project (FHWA, 2011). For example, if a project focuses on improving mobility, its performance metrics tend to be related to average speeds, average travel times, violation rates, and the like. On the other hand, if a project focuses on the preservation of revenue, its performance metrics tend to be related to gross and net revenue generation, operation costs, revenue leakage, and so forth (FHWA, 2011). In addition, the selected performance metrics tend to vary based on the state (FHWA, 2013). For example, in Virginia, VDOT prioritizes performance measures related to performance, safety, condition, and finance, while in North Carolina, NCDOT prioritizes per- formance measures related to safety, infrastructure health, and engagement (FHWA, 2013). Similarly, a performance metric may be measured differently across transportation authorities. For instance, both Washington State DOT (WSDOT) (SR-167) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) (95 Express) measure reliability as a performance metric. However, WSDOT measures reliability using end-to-end travel times, while FDOT measures reliability using the percentage of vehicles that reach the minimum speed threshold of 45 miles per hour. Overall, these examples demonstrate that traffic performance metrics often vary due to indi- vidual goals, different definitions, and locational contexts (Perez et al., 2011). Performance metrics may additionally echo the community’s interest and feedback (Perez et al., 2011). The community generally wants to evaluate if there was a performance improve- ment and to know how its tax dollars were utilized (FHWA, 2013). Moreover, the general public is strongly interested in metrics related to enforcement, such as the violation rate of occupancy requirements and toll payment requirements for perceptions of fairness and equity (Lui et al., 2011). Performance metrics help inform the general public about the operations of priced managed lanes. For instance, when the first HOV projects were scrutinized (Perez et al., 2011), operators rigorously tracked performance metrics to demonstrate their effectiveness. These data demonstrated the success of the projects, so the general public and elected officials accepted the first HOV projects (Perez et al., 2011). To determine the perception of priced managed lane projects, transportation authorities may evaluate performance measures such as the overall satisfaction level, the level of utilization, the level of acceptance, and the like through user surveys (Goodin et al., 2013c). Although specific performance metrics vary among projects, most projects use similar performance monitoring equipment that continuously monitors and collects data. Typically, performance monitoring equipment includes loop detectors, automated toll collection systems, still cameras, and video cameras (Perez et al., 2011). There are various levels of involvement and investment with each type of equipment (Goodin et al., 2013c). Transportation authorities may collect performance data automatically or manually, although automatic collection is signifi- cantly more common (FHWA, 2013). Successful projects frequently collect data throughout the project in a reliable manner (Perez et al., 2012b). The reliability of the monitoring equipment may be evaluated by regularly testing the results for accuracy (Perez et al., 2012b). According to FHWA, performance measures and metrics should be repeatedly and regularly evaluated for their effectiveness. FHWA suggests that priced managed lane projects include a measure that identifies if the project has satisfied its targets and objectives, such as establishing threshold values or desirable levels of change (FHWA, 2011). Performance Reporting Agencies that implement and manage priced managed lanes usually publish a performance report in the months following the opening of a new project (Wood et al., 2016). The state legislation that enables a managed lane project may also require the transportation authority to publish annual performance reports (Perez et al., 2011). As an example, Minnesota legislation requires that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) submit

Literature Review 15 annual performance reports on the MnPASS I-35W HOT lanes (Perez et al., 2011). Likewise, Washington State legislation requires that WSDOT submit annual performance reports on the SR-167 HOT lanes (Perez et al., 2011). State legislation may include a provision that spec- ifies that performance reports must include specific measures in the document. For example, the performance report for the MnPASS I-35W HOT lanes must address travel speeds, toll revenues, safety conditions, and operational efficiency (Perez et al., 2011). Meanwhile, the performance report for the SR-167 HOT lanes must discuss efficiency, safety, transit effec- tiveness, vehicle and person movements by mode, and equity issues (Perez et al., 2011). The characteristics of performance reports significantly vary among distinct relevant trans- portation authorities (Perez et al., 2011). As such, performance reports may have different publishing formats, varying frequencies, different levels of open access, and a ranging level of detail. In all cases, the composition of the performance report should be accessible and inter- pretable (Perez et al., 2011). Many agencies, such as FDOT, publish their performance reports online using PDF (Appendix E; FDOT, 2018). Private consultants occasionally prepare PDF performance reports on behalf of a public operating agency (Carson, 2005). The performance reports usually include sections explaining the scope, results, and overall conclusions, which may include specific recommendations or action plans. A typical performance report combines written text, tables, charts, and maps (Carson, 2005). The PDF performance reports tend to be published either monthly, quarterly, or annually (Perez et al., 2011). For example, FDOT publishes a performance report for the 95 Express every month (Appendix E; FDOT, 2018), while CDOT publishes a performance report for the I-25 Express Lanes every quarter (CDOT, 2016). Performance reports for managed lane projects can also have different publishing frequencies within the same transportation agency. For instance, WSDOT publishes a performance report for the I-405 Express Toll Lanes on a 36-month basis (Appendix F; WSDOT, 2019), while the SR-167 HOT lane performance report is published annually (WSDOT, n.d.b). Overall, FHWA standard practice of reporting is annually for performance reports (FHWA, 2013). Some transportation authorities, such as the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the Utah Department of Transportation, and Caltrans, provide real-time performance dash- boards on their respective websites (Perez et al., 2011). For example, GDOT’s performance dashboard reveals the current speed of traffic along interstates, freeways, and local streets (GDOT, n.d.). The dashboard locates specific areas of congestion, incidents, hazards, and shoulder events. The dashboard allows a reader to calculate current or historical trip time, view data for particular corridors, monitor conditions from over 2,000 live cameras, or view the dashboard historically (GDOT, n.d.). Performance reports are an essential part of public acceptability (Zmud and Arce, 2008). According to WSDOT, its project website received over three times the average number of daily visits once the SR-167 HOT lanes’ annual performance report was published in 2010 (WSDOT, 2011). Performance reports also help to verify performance objectives and to cite areas for improvement (Perez et al., 2011). As such, a performance report provides transpor- tation agencies a template for determining which policies, practices, and controls are assisting their primary objective. These quantitative measures, therefore, may help guide improvements or adaptations for priced managed lanes (Perez et al., 2011). Price Management Controls and Mitigation Approaches Price management controls, such as toll caps, are one of the biggest challenges for a priced managed lane project (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). In general, a toll cap is the maximum toll price for an uninterrupted trip. A toll cap can be referred to as soft or hard. When a toll cap is hard,

16 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes the maximum toll price is unyielding and inelastic, regardless the situation. However, when a toll cap is soft, the maximum toll price is flexible and adjustable, under certain circumstances. Specifically, agencies can remove the maximum toll price if the maintenance of minimum travel speeds cannot occur under the established maximum toll price (Langman et al., 2018). There are advantages and disadvantages to both a soft toll cap and a hard toll cap (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). A soft toll cap assists transportation authorities in managing severe traffic condi- tions (Wood, 2019). Therefore, transportation authorities of priced managed lanes prefer implementing soft toll caps to control congestion despite potential pushback. Since soft toll caps can reach high prices during severe traffic conditions, soft toll caps are politically risky. Because of resultant public outcry and negative media coverage following costly toll prices, elected officials tend to focus on toll rates and toll caps instead of other critical and fundamental performance measures (Wood, 2019). At the same time, if a hard toll cap is too low and unyielding to reduce demand on the priced managed lane project, the conditions on the priced managed lane could deteriorate (Langman et al., 2018). Specifically, a hard toll cap may cause projects to fail their minimum speed require- ments under severe traffic congestion. However, elected officials and the general public tend to prefer hard toll caps for economic protection and financial security (Langman et al., 2018). As an example, the I-66 Express Lanes (inside the Beltway of Washington, D.C.) do not have a hard toll cap. Each month, about a hundred trips, on average, reach a toll price of over $40 (VDOT, 2018). In a broader context, toll prices only reached or surpassed $40 for 0.02% of all Express Lanes trips in August 2018 (VDOT, 2018). When the toll price reaches $40, the coverage of the I-66 Express Lanes (inside the Beltway) is sensationalized. For example, a U.S. representative has referred to the 66 Express Lanes as highway robbery (Tuss, 2017). The project received a plethora of negative media coverage, with a local television network stating that users were wasting their money by using the I-66 Express Lanes (Longo and Titus, 2018), and there has been a public outcry to lower the toll prices substantially, with many citizens believing that the toll prices are unfair since they already pay for highway infrastructure via taxes (Lazo, 2018). Although the lack of a toll cap provides VDOT a greater ability to control demand on the priced managed lane project, it is subject to public backlash (VDOT, Stakeholder Interview, May 6, 2019). The TEXpress Lanes in North Texas have a soft toll cap of 90 cents per mile, which can temporarily be exceeded to reduce traffic volume and improve traffic (North Central Texas Council of Governments [NCTCOG], Stakeholder Interview, April 24, 2019). In April 2019, the private company managing the toll lanes, North Tarrant Express Mobility Partners, tem- porarily lifted the soft toll cap because of congestion (Dickson, 2019). The toll price was briefly raised to $3 per mile. Inadvertently and opposite of expectations, the demand for driving on the TEXpress Lanes increased. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram attributed the phenomena to local drivers associating higher toll prices with excessive congestion on the general-purpose lanes (Dickson, 2019). Therefore, even with soft toll caps, transportation authorities may still struggle to manage traffic performance. To manage severe traffic conditions under a hard toll cap, Washington State’s SR-176 HOT Lane facility can revert to HOV-only operation (Burris et al., 2011). Specifically, it reverts if the hard toll cap of $9 is reached without achieving minimum traffic performance (Burris et al., 2011). In San Diego, the I-15 Express Lanes, which have a hard toll cap of $8, also have the capability to revert to HOV-only operation (511 San Diego Region, n.d.). According to the business operations program manager for the San Diego Association of Governments, the hard toll cap of $8 presents a significant challenge because it restricts the ability to manage congestion (Ross, 2019).

Literature Review 17 Beyond price management controls, transportation authorities of priced managed lane projects frequently use mitigation to manage congestion (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Predominant mitigation approaches include improving the geometric design, adjusting the pricing algo- rithm, restricting toll exemption categories, increasing enforcement, and promoting alternative modes and alternative routes (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Geometric design challenges tend to increase congestion by reducing throughput capacity (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). For instance, in Washington State, the I-405 Express Toll Lanes have one of the most obvious and problematic geometric problems, which limits the performance ability of the managed lane facility overall (WSDOT, Stakeholder Interview, May 14, 2019). Specifically, the I-405 Express Toll Lanes have a bottleneck from Tukwila to Bothell as the facility drops down from two lanes to one lane (WSDOT, n.d.a). At this point, as many cars converge and cluster together, conflict occurs (Morris, 2016). To alleviate the challenge, the Washington State Legislature (WSL) revised state regulation to provide allocated funding for severe choke- point mitigation (WSL, n.d.). As such, it is expected that traffic performance and congestion will improve at acute chokepoint locations within the state (WSDOT, n.d.c). For another primary mitigation approach method, many operators attempt to optimize their pricing algorithm through occasional adjustments (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). For example, when the I-405 Express Toll Lanes began operation in September 2015, the pricing algorithm was not allowed to reach the maximum toll price. As demand escalated, WSDOT adjusted the pricing algorithm within a year of operation (WSDOT, Stakeholder Interview, May 14, 2019). The adjustments allowed the price to reach the maximum toll cap and improved responsiveness to congestion (Wood, 2019). Similarly, FDOT changed the 95 Express in Florida incrementally over time to reach optimal traffic performance (Perez et al., 2011). Enforcement Practices Violations and system errors on priced managed lanes pose severe problems for facility opera- tors and the general public. Transportation authorities attempt to minimize unlawful activity on facilities through a wide array of enforcement practices. Enforcement practices focus on compliance with toll payments and occupancy requirements. Enforcement practices can be complicated and highly technological, or they can be practical and straightforward. Transpor- tation authorities often face challenges with enforcement practices because they may interfere and conflict with mobility and stagnate traffic. Because of high violation rates, the general public connects unsuccessful enforcement on priced managed lanes with unfairness. To collect toll payments, all toll operators in the United States use an overhead gantry system that is fitted with ETC equipment. The ETC equipment includes a camera system equipped with automatic license plate readers and a toll transponder system with radio frequency identification (Petrella et al., 2014). Using these toll payment enforcement practices, toll operators can easily send automated toll violation notices to vehicles (Zimmerman et al., 2015). Although the enforcement of toll payments is largely automated, enforcement of vehicle occupancy requirements is exclusively manual (Perez et al., 2011). Currently, automated tech- nology capable of enforcing vehicle occupancy requirements does not exist. Enforcement for vehicle occupancy requirements predominately relies on state patrol troopers, who tend to be contracted by transportation authorities (Perez et al., 2011). For example, MnDOT contracted eight troopers with the Minnesota State Patrol (MSP) to enforce the I-394 MnPASS priced managed lane and the I-35W MnPASS priced managed lane (MnDOT, 2018). MSP troopers are explicitly hired for the morning peak and the afternoon peak, when violations and system errors are highest (Perez et al., 2011). To hire troopers and conduct other enforcement activities,

18 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes MnDOT spent $608,860 on enforcement expenditures in 2017 for the I-394 MnPASS and I-35W MnPASS priced managed lanes, which composed 31.19% of the entire operations and mainte- nance expenditures for the year (Buckeye, 2012). Manual enforcement faces significant challenges and complications (Goodin et al., 2013b). Specifically, identifying the number of occupants in a vehicle can be difficult because of users traveling at high speeds, tinted windows, low-visibility weather or lighting conditions, and so forth (Goodin et al., 2013b). To safely pull over violators, troopers need a sufficiently wide shoulder (Perez et al., 2011). Transportation agencies typically recommend a 10- to 12-feet wide shoulder to provide ample clearance for enforcement activities (Perez et al., 2011). If a shoulder is less than 8 feet wide, the shoulder is not suitable for conducting manual enforcement (Perez et al., 2011). If the facility does not have sufficient shoulders, transportation agencies recom- mend creating pullout enforcement areas at intervals of 1 to 3 miles with sufficient width and length. According to the guideline of Caltrans, a suitable pullout area would have a width of 23 feet and a length of 1,300 feet (Perez et al., 2011). Overall, transportation authorities may want to balance enforcement practices with mobility, which may present significant challenges, given that the two forces often conflict (Perez et al., 2011). For example, creating multiple access locations allows additional users to benefit from the facility, but it makes enforcement more challenging in comparison to a limited-access facility (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Similarly, placing a barrier on the facility impedes mobility in the event of a crash or hazard, but it significantly eases enforcement and limits toll evasion. The alter- native to a barrier is placing pylons on the facility. Pylons have less mobility restrictions com- pared with a barrier, but enforcement with pylons is challenging. Users tend to evade the toll by illegally driving over the pylons (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Barriers have a significantly higher cost than a pylon ($16 per linear foot compared with $3 per linear foot, respectively), which creates additional trade-offs (Goodin et al., 2013b). On the other hand, traffic stops and the presence of officers on a highway can pressure drivers to operate their vehicle at a slow pace, which may stagnate traffic. To avoid this challenge, authorities of the I-10 Katy Freeway Managed Lanes in Houston, Texas, have tried performing occupancy checks out of sight and handling incident management calls at off-site locations (Goodin et al., 2013a). Operators have cited enforcement violations as a compelling concern for priced managed lanes. Within Minnesota, over 500 MnPASS transponder holders participated in a 2009 online survey. The respondents expressed overwhelming concerns about violations (Buckeye, 2012). Comparably, WSDOT surveyed toll tag account holders from 2008 to 2011. In the comment section of the survey, most respondents wanted the department to concentrate on preventing users from illegally crossing the double white lines that separate the priced managed lanes from the general-purpose lanes (Goodin et al., 2013a). The most common feedback from the Twin Cities metropolitan region, during a focused public discussion arranged by the Metropolitan Council in 2014, was that enforcement rules tend to be both difficult to understand and intimi- dating to a new user (Munnich, Karlsson, and Fure, 2015). Focus groups conducted in 2008 with Santa Clara County residents found that travelers cited enforcement concerns when consider- ing the negatives of implementing HOT lanes on SR-85. Specifically, focus group participants mentioned an abundance of cheaters, a general unfairness, and safety risks as significant issues. Similarly, there were concerns that enforcement technology would be problematic because of fears that it may not accurately or fairly detect carpool users (SA Opinion Research, 2008). Altogether, enforcement practices are vital to the success of priced managed lanes (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Additionally, they are essential to both the general public as well as the facility operators. The public, since they are paying to use the lanes, expect a high level of integrity (Zmud and Arce, 2008). Especially in the case of HOV-to-HOT conversions, legitimate HOV users may be frustrated if they see their benefits diminished because of weak enforcement

Literature Review 19 (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). As such, successful enforcement practices assist the general public in believing that priced managed lanes are fair (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). On the other hand, successful enforcement practices are necessary for facility operators to achieve their goals effectively, engage in traffic management, and secure revenue to continue operations (Perez et al., 2011). Going forward, enforcement practices may improve as the state of technology for automated enforcement progresses. The technology is not yet mature—more testing and research is required—but the technology may reach priced managed lane facilities in the near future (Cloyed, 2016). Public Engagement Messaging Comprehension Managed lanes are a relatively new transportation strategy in many locations, and public understanding is often lacking, notably because project goals and operating policies may differ from one project to the next within the same state or even the same city (Zmud and Arce, 2008). A Texas-based study conducted with five focus groups of travelers found that the concept of priced managed lanes and its policies were often confusing to users (Kockelman et al., 2006). According to NCHRP Synthesis 377, the public wants simplicity with tolling projects and plans. As such, public support was higher when tolling projects and policies were easier to understand than when tolling projects and policies were complex (Zmud and Arce, 2008). Existing research predominately demonstrates that the public is still struggling to under- stand basic concepts of priced managed lane projects (Zmud and Arce, 2008). For example, when Minnesota’s Metropolitan Council held community conversations in 2014 for the I-35E MnPASS managed lane extension project, they discovered that the general public was not well informed about the general concept of managed lanes (Munnich et al., 2015). Notably, the general public reported that they did not understand necessary information about the project, especially regarding intimidating rules for enforcement and usage (Munnich et al., 2015). Over- all, the general public tends to support simple proposals for priced managed lane projects, and opposition grows as complexity rises (Zmud and Arce, 2008). Ultimately, the lack of compre- hension regarding necessary information of priced managed lanes can spur skepticism, distrust, or frustration with proposed or existing projects (Zmud and Arce, 2008). Furthermore, miscomprehensions about priced managed lanes tend to lead to adverse reactions to the concept of priced managed lane projects, although travelers tend to still use the facility upon opening (Zmud and Arce, 2008). Many travelers view priced managed lanes as a punishment or take-away, such as an additional tax or charge on previously free infrastruc- ture. In Minnesota, a ubiquitous and erroneous belief is that MnPASS lanes only benefit those drivers paying the toll and do not help other travelers or transit users (Munnich et al., 2015). Initially, public perception may be negative, but as the project becomes operational, public satisfaction tends to increase (Zmud and Arce, 2008). Existing research suggests that as priced managed lanes increase in an area, the challenge of message comprehension may diminish (Perez et al., 2011). For instance, when the public has prior exposure to priced managed lane projects, public acceptance and interest increases for future projects (Perez et al., 2011). Similarly, when the public receives clarifying information for priced managed lanes, public support increases (Perez et al., 2011). Providing information raised public support from 48% to 94% based on aggregate survey results from NCHRP Synthesis 377 (Zmud and Arce, 2008). The perception of priced managed lanes tends to be positive in settings where the public has a chance to ask questions and understand priced managed lanes (Munnich et al., 2015). According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), transportation authorities can

20 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes help the public comprehend priced managed lanes by delivering a clear and consistent message throughout all project phases (Donald et al., 2013). Effectiveness of Communicating the Purpose of Managed Lanes Current research suggests that the general public neither fully comprehends nor trusts the purpose of managed lanes (Perez et al., 2011; Zmud and Arce, 2008). According to a 2018 report by USDOT, the public perceives the purpose of managed lanes with a high level of scrutiny and skepticism (FHWA, n.d.c). Mainly, public distrust exists regarding the use of revenue and the effectiveness of managed lanes (FHWA, n.d.c). Many current priced managed lane projects cannot alter the perception that the primary goal of the facility is to generate revenue (Perez et al., 2011). This perception is particularly challenging since much of the public consequently views priced managed lanes as a scheme to get more money from the public, according to eight focus groups conducted by WSDOT in 2011 (Fellows and Cummings, 2011). The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority discovered, from four focus groups in 2008, that respondents were suspicious about the government responsibly using toll revenue (SA Opinion Research, 2008). In addition to concerns over revenue generation and use, current research suggests that sig- nificant portions of the population do not believe priced managed lanes can be useful as a traffic management tool (Zmud and Arce, 2008). For example, the National Capital Region Transporta- tion Planning Board conducted five deliberative forums in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Colombia during 2013, with a total of over 300 participants (Swanson and Hampton, 2013). Within these forums, a vast majority of participants believed that congestion is a critical problem but felt that managed lanes are not an effective solution to reducing demand since, according to the participants, most people do not have choices other than driving (Swanson and Hampton, 2013). Four focus groups were conducted in Sunnyvale, California, during 2008, and researchers found that participants had no initial awareness of using priced managed lanes as a traffic management tool but perceived the concept with skepticism and distrust (SA Opinion Research, 2008). In Seattle, household travel surveys and focus groups from 2014 revealed that respon- dents did not think reduced congestion was a likely consequence of tolling (Peirce et al., 2014). Overall, the public cares about the purpose of priced managed lane projects, despite their skepticism (Zmud and Arce, 2008). To avoid suspicion of the intention of managed lanes, USDOT recommended in 2018 that agencies establish and publish performance measures that tie directly to project goals (FHWA, n.d.c). The Orange County Transportation Authority successfully gained public trust after engaging in a vigorous media endeavor to educate the public about the purpose of its 91 Express Lanes (Perez et al., 2011). After its public outreach efforts, complaints about the purpose of the 91 Express Lanes decreased once consumers grasped the intention of priced managed lanes (Perez et al., 2011). The effectiveness of commu- nicating the purpose of managed lanes can be improved via an emphasis on benefits, implemen- tation of pilot trials, and incremental implementation with clear communication and outreach efforts (Swanson and Hampton, 2013). Communication Practices and Media The success of a priced managed lane facility depends heavily on communication practices and media because they largely shape public perception (Perez et al., 2011). To avoid potential challenges, the public engagement process should launch in the very early stages of consideration and continue past the implementation stage (Perez et al., 2011). When successful, communi- cation practices and media assist in building support for the priced managed lane project by enhancing awareness and educating relevant populations (Zmud and Arce, 2008). For instance, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board found, through four listening

Literature Review 21 sessions in 2011, that the successful way to increase support for priced managed lane projects was to use communication practices that highlight the benefits for individuals and clearly and specifically articulate compelling values (Swanson and Hampton, 2013). In the first phase of public engagement and outreach, the transportation authority should determine public attitudes and preferences about traffic conditions and priced managed lane projects (Perez et al., 2011). Consequently, the results can guide the transportation authority in planning its outreach strategy and designing the facility. For example, the 91 Express Lanes project was mostly successful due to Caltrans’ initial public engagement process, which spe- cifically directed the public to project websites and newsletters and extensively educated the public on the essential characteristics of road pricing and managed lanes (Perez et al., 2012a). A transportation authority can use a wide variety of public engagement approaches to benefit its projects. Thus, during the early consideration phase, CDOT focused on outreach in the form of videos, moving billboards, and extensive press coverage (Perez et al., 2011). WSDOT informed the public on how to use the SR-167 HOT lanes by placing information sheets on gas-pump toppers along the corridor (WSDOT, 2011). For the I-394 MnPASS project, MnDOT developed customized and tailored communication practices and media that varied based on the audience, whether conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, transit users, SOV users, or other (Munnich and Loveland, 2005). Furthermore, promising projects tend to develop relationships with media in the early phases of consideration, such as the I-15 Express Lanes project in San Diego and the I-394 MnPASS project (Supernak et al., 2001). The I-15 Express Lanes project facilitators, from the onset, devel- oped a valuable relationship with media and public relations (Munnich and Loveland, 2005). Consequently, media and public relations consistently provided factual, fair, and helpful infor- mation about the project (Munnich and Loveland, 2005). Because of authorities’ extensive and early public engagement process, focus groups confirmed that I-15 Express Lane customers understood the intricacies and complexities of the facility (Perez et al., 2011). On the other hand, media can serve as a challenge for implementing a project, as was the case for Atlanta’s I-85 Express Lanes, Virginia’s 66 Express Lanes, and Texas’ TEXpress Lanes (Perez et al., 2011). Specifically, the media coverage of Atlanta’s I-85 Express Lanes project was mostly critical from the onset, emphasizing the views of those groups who vehemently opposed tolling rather than focusing on educating and informing the public about the project (Zimmerman et al., 2014). A report prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority found, after extensively reviewing news coverage, that media frequently emphasized a rich man versus poor man theme to create compelling coverage when discussing priced managed lane projects (Sciara and Weinstein, 2004). Overall, the guidance suggests that managed lane operators can lessen negative press coverage by building relationships with media early in the project development process (Perez et al., 2011). Additionally, communication practices should initially inform and engage the public, which can help with support and constituency building (Perez et al., 2011). Political and Social Roadblocks to Implementation Priced managed lane projects tend to be out of favor with elected officials, who hold sig- nificant power because of their ability to provide tolling authority and funding opportunities (Zmud and Arce, 2008). According to NCHRP Synthesis 377, politicians may misinterpret the general public opinion about priced managed lane projects. Commonly, politicians assume that the general public is staunchly opposed to priced managed lanes without verifiable information (Zmud and Arce, 2008). In reality, high-validity aggregate surveys demonstrate that there is distinct support from a majority of the general public for the concept and its implementation (Zmud and Arce, 2008).

22 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes Politicians may misinterpret the general public opinion about priced managed lane projects because of a few vocal critics who have different views from the general population (Zmud and Arce, 2008). For example, a small rally occurred in front of the Texas Capitol in 2015 (Batheja, 2015) to promote removing Texas’s existing priced managed lane projects and to end future priced managed lane projects. Citizens attended the rally holding various signs that advocated for toll-free highways. Several elected officials from Texas participated in the rally support- ing the Keep Free Lanes Free Act bill (Batheja, 2015). Subsequently, the Texas Department of Transportation halted planning of several priced managed lane projects in 2017 after elected officials claimed the agency did not align with the needs and desires of the public (Formby, 2017). Comparably, in Florida, a portion of the population stopped the Tampa Bay Express project by attending public hearings in opposition, which caused FDOT to abandon the project (O’Donnell, 2018). On the other hand, elected officials may oppose priced managed lane projects because of the specialized needs of their community (Pesesky et al., 2018). For example, local elected officials may oppose a project because of regional inequality and geographical reasons (Pesesky et al., 2018). In addition, local elected officials may bear a more significant portion of the burden by accepting the project. A priced managed lane project may affect property values and the character of a community, which could cause political backlash toward local elected officials (Narváez and Quick, 2017). Similarly, many priced managed lane projects in north Texas were opposed by local and state elected officials because of regional inequality (Martinez, 2019). In far west Texas, a priced managed lane project was opposed by state representatives because of underuse (Martinez, 2017). According to the representatives, the priced managed lanes on the César Chávez Border Highway were only used approximately two to three hours a day, with only 6% of the vehicles on the Border Highway using the priced managed lanes (Hunt, 2017). Therefore, three years after tolling was implemented on the César Chávez Border Highway in El Paso, two Texas state representatives led the charge to cease tolling on the facility (Villa, 2017). The representatives inserted a statute into Senate Bill 312 that helped remove tolling in both of the representa- tives’ districts in 2017 (Martinez, 2017). Soon after, the Texas Transportation Commission unanimously approved the removal of tolls from the César Chávez Border Highway (Martinez, 2017). Overall, transportation infrastructure is embedded in a deeply political process, funda- mentally involving differing values and priorities that can significantly affect implementation (Narváez and Quick, 2017). Successful projects tend to be coordinated among a diverse group of stakeholders (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Collaboration can pose a significant challenge because implementation frequently requires addressing hurdles and reaching agreements (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). For instance, PANYNJ has a joint process to adjust toll rates on its facilities (Perez et al., 2011). Specifically, PANYNJ must cooperatively agree on a revenue target, receive approval from its board, and avoid a veto by the governor of New York and the governor of New Jersey (Perez et al., 2011). Likewise, to implement the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) and Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Agreement programs, such as the I-85 Express Lanes in Atlanta, exten- sive collaboration was required across departments, agencies, and politicians (Zimmerman et al., 2015). In general, HOT lanes require at least some degree of cooperation (Rondinelli, 2003). When a transportation authority partners with the private sector for a public-private partner- ship, unique challenges tend to arise (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). For example, California’s 91 Express Lanes project was developed in partnership with the California Private Transporta- tion Company (Bosselman, 2019). Citizens perceived the partnership as a considerable viola- tion of public trust. The partnership included a noncompete clause that restricted Caltrans from making improvements on nonpriced lanes despite escalating congestion (Ni, 2012).

Literature Review 23 In the same way, North Carolina’s 77 Express Lanes project faced significant resistance because of the public-private partnership, as evidenced by a bill passed by the North Carolina House of Representatives to cancel the problematic toll contract with Cintra in 2016 (Morrill, 2016). The contract had risks akin to the 91 Express Lanes project, such as a restrictive noncompete clause that would constrain future improvements (Portillo and Henderson, 2018). Overall, projects are susceptible to political pressure and social backlash. Equity Public Perceptions of Equity In regard to priced managed lane projects, equity is a complex and challenging topic that considers how projects distribute cost and benefits among different members of society (Pesesky et al., 2018). For instance, many priced managed lane projects consider equity across income levels, geographical locations, and transportation modes. However, income equity is the most commonly discussed and controversial topic for projects since the implementation of tolls can disproportionately burden low-income populations (Pesesky et al., 2018). Among the existing relevant literature, there is a divide about how the public perceives equity within priced managed lane projects. Approximately half of the reviewed research portrayed priced managed lane projects as equitable and fair, while the other half portrayed them as inequitable and unfair (Ecola and Light, 2009). Of the literature that concluded that the public perceived priced managed lane projects as inequitable, the specific reasoning tended to relate to unfairness for low-income individuals (Munnich et al., 2015; SA Opinion Research, 2008; Herr, 2012; Bosselman, 2019; Taylor, 2010). For example, in Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council held public discussions for the MnPASS project, wherein the public predominately remarked that the project exclusively yielded benefits to a small portion of motorists who could afford to pay the toll, leaving little benefit for low-income individuals (Munnich et al., 2015). When Los Angeles implemented an HOV-to- HOT lane conversion for I-10 and I-110 under the UPA/CRD Program, over half of travelers in a customer satisfaction survey believed the project exclusively benefited wealthy individuals (Zimmerman et al., 2015). In Atlanta, a two-stage panel survey of almost 2,000 respondents found that low-income individuals were less likely to use the I-85 Express Lane than other income groups after the conversion (Petrella et al., 2014). Similarly, African American indi- viduals decreased their usage of the lanes after the conversion by 7%, with the primary reason given being that the tolls were too expensive (Petrella et al., 2014). Furthermore, Colorado’s US 36 Express Lanes were primarily opposed based on equity and environmental justice con- cerns since the project planned to physically impact predominately low-income and Latino neighborhoods (Bosselman, 2019). In general, many motorists view tolling on managed lanes as unfair because it is regressive for low-income individuals (Wood et al., 2016). On the other hand, a significant portion of the literature concluded that the public per- ceived priced managed lane projects as equitable and fair (Zmud and Arce, 2008; WSDOT, 2008; FHWA, n.d.c; Petrella et al., 2014; Munnich and Loveland, 2005). For instance, the Puget Sound Regional Council conducted eight focus groups in 2007 with a diverse group of motorists and transit users. The participants perceived HOT lane projects as equitable and fair because of the availability of choices (Fellows and Cummings, 2011). In 2007, WSDOT suggested that SR-167’s option of travel choice could help low-income individuals avoid late fees or penalties by allowing them to reach work, childcare, and other appointments on time (WSDOT, 2008). San Diego Association of Governments conducted a survey regarding the I-15 Express Lanes in 2001 that demonstrated a perception of fairness across all income groups (Ross, 2019).

24 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes Explicitly, participants associated the project with improvements toward the general-purpose lanes as well as enhancements toward public transportation (Ross, 2019). In Seattle and Florida, after the implementation of priced managed lane projects, travelers in the general-purpose lanes quantitatively benefited from improved travel times (Herr, 2012). Following the conversions, Seattle’s SR-167 corridor benefited from about a 19% increase in travel speeds on the free general-purpose lanes, and Florida’s I-95 corridor benefited from about an 11-minute decrease in travel time per trip on the general-purpose lanes (Herr, 2012). Overall, the portion of motorists who perceive priced managed lane projects as equitable and fair tends to grow significantly following the conversion and implementation phase (Zmud and Arce, 2008). How Agencies Address Equity Generally, most agencies attempt to address equity concerns by first identifying dispropor- tionately high and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations by using studies or community conversations (Pesesky et al., 2018). For example, WSDOT conducted a study on the SR-167 HOT lane project to understand the project’s impacts on equity and environmental justice (WSDOT, 2008). The study found that many low-income individuals lacked access to bank accounts, credit cards, and debit cards, which tend to be a requirement to use electroni- cally priced facilities. Accordingly, the agency addressed this equity concern by implementing a cash payment program that allowed motorists to pay for tolls using cash (WSDOT, 2008). Similarly, FDOT found the price of a transponder a barrier for many low-income individuals (Pesesky et al., 2018). Therefore, FDOT offered an affordable transponder for $4.99 that can be refilled by using cash at convenient locations such as grocery stores and pharmacies (Pesesky et al., 2018). In response to concerns regarding the affordability of toll rates and transponder fees, LA Metro launched the innovative and unique Equity Plan for its priced managed lane projects (Perez et al., 2011). Specifically, low-income residents can apply for the Equity Plan, and if they qualify, LA Metro waives its monthly account maintenance fees, and they receive a one-time $25 toll credit. As another method to address equity concerns, many agencies improved their transit service by expanding routes and service areas, extending hours of service, and creating additional park- and-ride lots (Perez et al., 2011). Of the six UPA and CRD programs, five implemented transit improvements that created faster speeds and shorter travel times for an express bus service (Zimmerman et al., 2015). LA Metro invested heavily in transit improvements before the priced managed lane conversion to offset potentially adverse effects on low-income indi- viduals (Pesesky et al., 2018). Likewise, Los Angeles implemented the Transit Rewards Project, which provided toll credits for frequent transit users (Pesesky et al., 2018). Similarly, Minnesota dedicated 50% of excess project revenues from the I-35W MnPASS HOT Lane project toward transit improvements along the corridor. This initiative helped quell equity concerns and garner public support (Zimmerman et al., 2015). Furthermore, agencies addressed equity concerns by proactively engaging low-income indi- viduals and minority populations in the participation and outreach process (Pesesky et al., 2018). For instance, WSDOT announced and advertised relevant information and events in “minority newspapers, social service newsletters, transit, and at community events,” which helped engage minority populations and low-income individuals in the planning process (Fellows and Cummings, 2011). Toward this goal, many agencies created a community contact list and built relationships with the leaders of minority communities (Pesesky et al., 2018). To engage people with disabilities, many agencies also offered assistance for people with hearing or sight impairments (Pesesky et al., 2018). Overall, transportation authorities addressed equity con- cerns by using a wide array of approaches and techniques.