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.

25 This chapter documents the results of the state-of-the-practice survey on priced managed lanes. The survey collected data from all DOTs from 50 states and the District of Columbia. Responses came from every state and the District of Columbia, yielding a 100% response rate. The findings reported in this chapter came from basic statistics pulled from the survey—specifically, statistics generated from answering yes/no questions and options from a select list. Survey Content and Methodology The researchers led in the design of the survey, with input from the topic panel. The instru- ment was purposefully kept brief and consisted of the following sections: 1. Introduction. This section identified the purpose of the survey, why the respondent had been selected, participant responsibilities, definition of priced managed lanes, privacy statement, and principal investigatory contact information. 2. Engagement in planning, constructing, or operating managed lanes. This section identified which states were planning, constructing, or operating managed lanes. 3. Goals of priced managed lane implementation. This section presented respondents with a series of goals each state may have had for the implementation of its managed lanes. Respon- dents also had an opportunity to identify goals that were not presented in the survey. 4. Challenges to priced managed lane implementation. This section presented respondents with challenges each state may have faced when managed lanes were implemented. Respondents also had an opportunity to identify challenges that were not presented in the survey. 5. Importance of stakeholder groups with regard to priced managed lane implementation. This section presented respondents with groups of individuals that may pose various levels of importance to transportation agencies as managed lanes are planned, constructed, or operated. Respondents had an opportunity to evaluate the importance of each group. Respondents also had an opportunity to identify groups that were not presented in the survey. Once the 10-question survey was programmed for web administration, it was distributed to the project team and panel for testing. Once all edits had been addressed, the survey was deemed ready for distribution to participants. The survey instrument is included in Appendix A, and the semistructured interview script and questionnaire are in Appendix B. On February 6, 2019, the researchers sent the initial recruitment message to the potential respondents. The respondent pool primarily consisted of professionals from state DOTs. These professionals were believed to have the most knowledge of priced managed lanes in their respec- tive state. Overall, the respondent pool included individuals involved with the TRB Standing Committee on Managed Lanes and the TRB Standing Committee on Congestion Pricing. For many states, the researchers contacted representatives serving on the American Association of C H A P T E R 3 State-of-the-Practice Survey

26 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Planning, or in some cases, the AASHTO Committee on Traffic Engineering. During the recruitment period, the researchers sent several reminders to the initial and alternate recruits. Alternate recruits were contacted in the event that (a) the initial recruit failed to respond in a timely manner, (b) the initial recruit suggested an alternate contact as a better source of information, or (c) the original recruitment message resulted in a bounce back. Through April 22, 2019, when the final recruit- ment message was sent, a total of 83 individuals were recruited for participation. The recruitment message and reminder message are included in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. A total of 51 surveys were completed, with representation from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As such, this data collection effort is a more of a census, since 100% of the sample frame participated. The median survey length was approximately 9 minutes. Findings Sixteen of the 50 states and the District of Columbia are planning, constructing, or operating priced managed lanes. Of these 16 (roughly 31% of all the states), five (Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina) are in the planning stage, while 11 (California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) are constructing or operating priced managed lanes. See Figure 1 for details. The 35 respondents (roughly 69% of all the states) from states not currently planning, con- structing, or operating managed lanes were asked to provide a few sentences summarizing why their state is not currently seeking to implement priced managed lanes. Of the comments received, the most frequent comment was that current levels of congestion were not sufficient Figure 1. States planning, constructing, or operating priced managed lanes.

State-of-the-Practice Survey 27 to warrant priced managed lanes (32% of the 35 states). Several commenters stated that priced managed lanes are not allowed by their state legislature (16%) or that the investment required for priced managed lanes was too great and—in many cases—not financially feasible (16%). Approximately one in 10 respondents mentioned that priced managed lanes were politically unpopular with their state and local transportation policy makers (11%). The same proportion of comments (11%) suggested a lack of sufficient right of way for the priced managed lanes and a hesitancy to convert existing lanes to priced managed lanes. Other reasons mentioned included the following: • Respondents noted that either no evaluation had been conducted to examine priced managed lanes, or evaluations that were conducted showed limited improvement over existing condi- tions (5% of the 35 states). • One comment mentioned that a conservative approach to priced managed lanes had been adopted, and the state decided against implementation (3% of the 35 states). • One comment mentioned that no urban area in the state was in nonattainment of air quality standards (3% of the 35 states). • One comment mentioned a fear of noncompliance and enforcement issues (3% of the 35 states). See Figure 2 for details. Respondents from states that are either planning, constructing, or implementing priced managed lanes in their state (n = 16, or 31% of all states) were presented with a series of potential goals for doing so. Improving mobility and traffic management (decreasing conges- tion) was the most popular goal, selected by all 16 respondents. Promoting transit service and incentivizing transit use was the next most popular, selected by 13 of 16 respondents (81% of the 16 states). Nine of 16 respondents (56% of the 16 states) selected improving environmental conditions and air quality, while eight (50% of the 16 states) stated that the goal of priced Figure 2. Reasons for not implementing priced managed lanes (n = 35 states, 69% of all states).

28 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes managed lanes was increasing economic activity. The least frequently selected response was increasing revenue generation, which was selected by less than a majority of respondents (44% of the 16 states). Two respondents proposed alternative goals to the predefined choices offered to all respondents: (a) familiarizing the public with tolling, and (b) increasing reliability by offering a guaranteed speed on tolled managed lanes. See Figure 3 for details. Ten of 16 respondents (63%) confirmed their state had multiple managed lane projects. Of these 10, three stated that each of these managed lane projects had different goals. These three respondents were asked to describe the goals for each project and how progress toward achiev- ing each goal is measured and reported. One respondent commented that the state had both state and privately operated managed lane facilities. The focus for state facilities was solely con- gestion reduction, while the privately operated facility was focused on revenue generation and congestion reduction. Another respondent commented their state’s two priced managed lanes are focused on managing congestion, helping transit, and increasing environmental benefits. The third respondent commented that priced managed lanes were focused on improving trip reliability, improving travel speeds, managing congestion, and creating transit benefit. Respondents from states with priced managed lanes were offered a list of critical challenges and asked to select the ones that influenced the implementation of priced managed lanes within their jurisdictions. Fifteen of 16 respondents (94%) confirmed that concerns about high tolls influenced implementation, while 14 of 16 (88%) said concerns about equity and burdens on select populations influenced implementation. The concerns about high tolls stem from the recurring announcement of toll prices that are typically seen on overhead signage and on toll account billing statements. Travelers commonly have anxieties about new fees and their ability to pay them over time. The concerns about an undue burden on select populations—mainly on low-income households—relate to similar ability-to-pay anxieties about high tolls. Of the challenges offered to respondents, concerns about toll exemptions and about private-sector involvement were least often identified as challenges (5 of 16 respondents, or 31%). Three respondents suggested their own unique concerns: impacts from an increased footprint for new tolled capacity, collecting enough revenue to cover costs, and changing state law to allow managed lanes. See Figure 4 for details. Respondents from states with priced managed lanes were offered a list of different groups of individuals and asked to evaluate each group based on the level of importance posed by each one to the implementation of tolling on managed lanes. Fifteen of 16 respondents (94%) reported that state lawmakers were highly important, and 10 of 16 respondents (63%) said Figure 3. Goals for implementing priced managed lanes (n = 16 states, 31% of all states).

State-of-the-Practice Survey 29 the same about local elected officials. Residents who live near the priced projects were iden- tified as highly important by 12 of 16 respondents (75%). Conversely, 14 of 16 respondents (88%) stated that residents living at least 100 miles away from a priced project were the least important group. Other groups deemed of low importance were social media and blogs (6 of 16 respondents, or 38%), traditional media (2 of 16 respondents, or 13%), and interest and advocacy groups (2 of 16 respondents, or 13%). See Figure 5 for details. The survey concluded by asking respondents representing states with priced managed lanes to briefly summarize how their state has handled various concerns posed by challenging groups. Ten of 16 respondents (63%) commented that public engagement was vital to addressing concerns. Suggestions for effective public engagement strategies included the following: • Focus on regional transportation issues (growing congestion, growing population, etc.) and the need for revenue to complete freeway projects to help address these issues. Figure 4. Key challenges that influence priced managed lane implementation (n = 16 states, 31% of all states). Figure 5. Importance posed to the implementation of tolling on managed lanes by various groups (n = 16 states, 31% of all states).

30 Emerging Challenges to Priced Managed Lanes • Maintain transparency in communicating toll setting, revenue generation, and lane usage. • Use real-world statistics and information regarding why tolled managed lanes are imple- mented and what the benefits are. • Remind the public that priced managed lanes are a choice that an individual can make for an increased level of service. This choice not only benefits the individual choosing to use the managed lane but also helps those users who choose not to use managed lanes by improving performance in the general-purpose lanes. • Use fact sheets and FAQs. • Have DOT executives participate in media events that address the major concerns. • Find someone who will serve as a champion for the idea of priced managed lanes and have them lead the charge. Three of 16 respondents commented that clear guidance and directives from their state legislators helped address concerns. Examples of this included the following: • Legislatively requested audits of toll facility comprehensive agreements that helped increase transparency. • Implementation of leadership advisory boards, including state legislators. • Modification of state legislative requirements for toll facility performance to more manage- able levels. Discussion The survey yielded interesting but distinct findings that were useful for researchers and prac- titioners of priced managed lanes. One of the main findings involved the reasons why states choose to pursue, or not pursue, priced managed lanes. All 16 respondents from states that are either operating, constructing, or planning priced managed lanes listed improving mobility and traffic management as a major goal, and 13 respondents from that group also listed improving and incentivizing transit as a major goal. In contrast, fewer than half of the respondents (or seven states) identified revenue generation as a goal. This discrepancy is notable because the public often sees and understands how tolling can generate money by having travelers pay fees that directly support the infrastructure they use. However, the theory of using tolling to manage demand and improve mobility is often a harder concept to publicly communicate. In the next chapter, all of the case examples attempt to show how agencies prioritized and communicated goals for priced managed lanes while addressing public concerns. Despite the increasing presence of online social media, survey respondents instead listed state lawmakers (15 out of 16 states), locally elected officials (10 states), and local residents (12 states) as having a high or critical importance to the success of a project. State legislators often hold the key for granting the authority to toll lanes and highways within a state. Even local and county-based transit agencies and toll authorities have to lobby state legislators to receive approval to place tolls on local highways. The I-635 Dallas, I-77 Charlotte, and I-405 Washington State case examples in the next chapter show how different agencies addressed challenges that stemmed from encounters with the state legislature. Locally elected officials and residents were also listed as having a high importance. Local concerns typi- cally emphasize new changes to the transportation system and perceptions about the lack of nontoll-paying alternatives. In the next chapter, the I-66 Virginia and I-10 Los Angeles case examples summarize how agencies addressed local issues.