# Presentation: 530801

## Value Pricing Projects:Public Involvement & Equity Issues

- K. Lynn Berry
- Resource Center
- Environment TST

## 1994

- “The reasons for rejection of congestion pricing in the past have not changed. Any shift from the current system of financing and using the transportation system toward more marketlike mechanisms can be expected to engender public and political resistance”
- Committee for Study on Urban Transportation Congestion Pricing

**Notes:**
From: Special Report 242: Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Vol. 1. TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1994.
As quoted in: Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland. (2005) Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1932, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.

## 2006 DOT initiatives

- 59 pricing projects reported in 1st Q 2006
- Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Office
- Value Pricing Pilot Program
- funded at $59 million through 2009
- Tolling and Pricing Team
- Special Experimental Project No. 15 (known colloquially as SEP-15)
- "Open Roads" pilot program

**Notes:**
The second key element in the Secretary’s vision is seeking greater participation of the private sector in developing and operating the transportation infrastructure. With state budgets stretched thin and gasoline taxes unable to keep pace with funding demands in the longer run, private capital is seen as an essential complement to tax dollars in helping to finance the nation’s highway infrastructure. 

The Secretary’s letter lists several Departmental policies and actions intended to attract private capital and reduce barriers to private sector participation. These include creation of a Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Office and a Tolling and Pricing Team to assist public authorities in pursuing those options; the Special Experimental Project No. 15 (known colloquially as SEP-15) designed to overcome barriers to project development and encourage innovation in project delivery; and the proposed "Open Roads" pilot program. The latter program will assist up to five states in mounting network-wide demonstrations of the application of tolls, variable pricing, and mileage-based fees. The $100 million program is proposed as part of the FY 2007 budget. 

Source: www.innobriefs.com

## 2006: Secretary Mineta Says:

- “It is time to take advantage of the private sector’s flexibility, innovation, creativity, expertise and access to capital."
- May 24, 2006 letter to Thomas E. Petri, Chairman of the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee

**Notes:**
In a May 24 letter to Thomas E. Petri, Chairman of the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta provides the most detailed statement yet of the Department’s plans to combat congestion and encourage private sector involvement in highway development. The 8-page letter was sent to Rep.Petri on the eve of a congressional hearing on the Future of Infrastructure Finance (see below). 

"This is a transformational time in the history of American highways," the Secretary wrote. We are entering a third era of Federal leadership in highway development. The first era began in 1916 with the Bureau of Public Roads’ efforts to get farmers out of the mud and to the market. The second era began in the 1950s with the launching of the Interstate Highway program to enhance the nation’s connectivity. The challenge of the third era is to combat growing congestion and to engage more fully the private sector in efforts to develop and improve transportation infrastructure. 

The Department’s intended response to these two challenges will take the form of two broad sets of actions. The first is the recently announced National Congestion Relief Initiative (full name: "National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network"). The second is a collection of programmatic efforts intended to encourage greater private sector involvement in highway development. 
Source: www.innobriefs.com 

## Urban Partnership Agreements

- Candidate cities may:
- demonstrate congestion pricing and variable toll programs,
- implement expanded commuter express bus services
- expedite projects to expand highway capacity that hold the greatest potential for reducing congestion and bottlenecks.

**Notes:**
The premise of the Congestion Relief Initiative is, in the Secretary’s words, that "traffic congestion is not a fact of life...nor is it an uncontrollable force or an insurmountable problem." It can be dealt with, but it will require new solutions and creative approaches. 

A key element of the Initiative is the concept of Urban Partnership Agreements that will allow selected candidate cities to demonstrate congestion pricing and variable toll programs, implement expanded commuter express bus services and expedite projects to expand highway capacity that hold the greatest potential for reducing congestion and bottlenecks. 

Other elements of the six-point congestion-mitigation plan include promoting low-cost operational and technological (ITS) improvements, developing multi-state, multi-use transportation corridors through a "Corridors of the Future" competition; pursuing a more active national freight policy focused on reducing freight bottlenecks; and seeking greater involvement of private shippers and carriers in freight policy implementation. 

Source: www.innobriefs.com

## SEP-15

- innovative contracting;
- compliance with environmental requirements;
- right-of-way acquisition; and
- project finance.

**Notes:**
Special Experimental Project No. 15 (SEP-15) is a new experimental process within
FHWA to encourage Public-Private Partnership approaches to project delivery. SEP-15
is designed to increase project management flexibility, encourage innovation, improve
timely project construction, and generate new revenue streams for Federal-aid
transportation projects.

## SAFETEA-LU provisions

- Private Activity Bonds
- Expanded tolling authority
- Lowered eligibility threshold for TIFIA loans

**Notes:**
Legislative provisions enacted as part of the SAFETEA-LU transportation reauthorization:

Private Activity Bonds SAFETEA-LU expands bonding authority for private activity bonds by adding highway facilities and surface freight transfer facilities to a list of other activities
eligible for exempt facility bonds
Expanded tolling authority,  For example: Under the new Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program, the Secretary may permit a State or compact of States to collect tolls on an Interstate highway, bridge, or tunnel for the purpose of constructing Interstate highways. This program is limited to 3 projects in total (nationwide.)
The new Express Lanes Demonstration Program will allow a total of 15 demonstration projects through 2009 to permit tolling to manage high levels of congestion, reduce emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area, or finance added Interstate lanes for the purpose of reducing congestion.
Lowered eligibility threshold for TIFIA loans  SAFETEA-LU authorizes a total of $610 million through 2009 to pay the subsidy cost of supporting Federal credit under TIFIA
Threshold required for total project cost is lowered to $50 million ($15 million for ITS projects), 
Eligibility is expanded to public freight rail facilities; private facilities providing public benefit for highway users, intermodal freight transfer facilities, access to such freight facilities service improvements to such facilities including capital investment for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

## Private Activity Bonds 

- Highway facilities and surface freight transfer facilities added to a list of other activities eligible for exempt facility bonds.

## Tolling

- Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program
- Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Toll Pilot Program
- Value Pricing Pilot Program
- Express Lanes Demonstration Program

## TIFIA

- SAFETEA-LU authorizes a total of $610 million through 2009 to pay the subsidy cost of supporting Federal credit under TIFIA
- Threshold required for total project cost is lowered to $50 million ($15 million for ITS projects),
- Eligibility is expanded to include
- public freight rail facilities
- private facilities providing public benefit for highway users,
- intermodal freight transfer facilities,
- access to such freight facilities
- service improvements to such facilities including capital investment for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

## What is a Public Private Partnership ?

- contractual agreements formed between a public agency and private sector entity

## What are some types of PPPs?

- Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) / Design Build Operate Maintain (DBOM)
- Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Transfer (DBFO)
- Maintenance and Operation Fee Service Contracts
- Program Management Fee Service Contracts
- Build-Own-Operate (BOO)

## Concession Agreements 

- Indiana, Virginia, Texas and the City of Chicago
- long term lease of an existing transportation asset
- Texas and California
- construction of a new asset by a private company and the lease of that asset to the private sector for a period of

## Environmental Defense Agrees

**Notes:**
An increasing number of transportation agencies and decisionmakers have realized the benefits of tolling (Samuel 2003).
• Tolling makes roads a user-pays system. Gas taxes do not cover all of the costs associated with driving, including the costs to the environment. Tolling helps drivers recognize these costs. And current gas tax revenues are insufficient to maintain, operate, and improve the nation’s highways, given growing travel demand.
• Tolling is flexible and levels can be changed to manage demand. Transportation
agencies can set toll rates to ensure sufficient revenue is collected to meet many different long-term needs, such as expanding transit services, maintaining roads or adding highway capacity. Current technology also enables transportation agencies to adjust toll rates minute by minute. This allows them to manage demand for scarce road capacity during short periods
of peak congestion. Such “dynamic tolling” can ensure traffic in managed lanes remains free flowing. This keeps the practical traffic capacity of these lanes from shrinking by half or more, as typically occurs in periods of high congestion. In essence, managing traffic with tolls adds new road capacity when and where it is needed most, without building more lanes.
• Tolls may be more popular than raising the gas tax. Tolls have been controversial in the past, but popular opinion may be shifting. A Washington Post February 2005 poll found that residents of Washington, D.C., and the surrounding areas overwhelmingly favored—by a 2 to 1 margin—paying tolls over higher taxes to fund highways (Ginsberg 2005a).
Source: www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5257_TollingReport0506.pdf

## What Role For Road Pricing? 

- Managing traffic congestion, traffic growth, and pollution
- Financing road system expansion, operations, mitigation of adverse impacts
- Financing transit, para-transit, walking, biking
- Supporting and financing growth management

## Getting Better Transportation Projects Faster?

- Incorporate pricing with smart growth, better transit in plans and projects
- Avoid or mitigate secondary induced, cumulative impacts
- Involve the public

- Do Value Pricing projects differ from traditional projects in terms of public involvement and/or equity analysis?

## Pricing Projects

- Less about direct impacts
- More about access, public uncertainty, equity

## Equity Concerns

- "If you are well-off financially and want to pay $4 or $5 a day to avoid congestion, then you get to use the lanes. But if you're a working person out there making $35,000 a year, an extra $25 per week is a lot of money.”
- Former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening (2001)
- Controversy halted HOT lanes on Rte. 50

**Notes:**
(Shaver 2001).

## Equity Concerns

- Not fair to provide better mobility to the wealthy?
- Data show low-income motorists consider it fair and do use priced lanes
- Ways to increase benefits to low-income travelers
- Use tolls to provide new transit services
- Provide “life-line” toll credits
- Provide credits to all motorists in regular lanes

- From: Mainstreaming Pricing Alternatives in Project Development. By Patrick DeCorla-Souza &Frederick Skaer. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the TRB January 2003.

**Notes:**
From: Mainstreaming Pricing Alternatives in Project Development. By Patrick DeCorla-Souza & Frederick Skaer.  Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the TRB January 2003.

According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2005), “projects in operation today have made great strides in addressing the equity issue and overcoming the perceived ‘Lexus lane’ syndrome. The I-15 Express lanes fund an entirely new bus service with revenues generated from the Express lanes. SANDAG [the San Diego Association of Governments] promotes this service as a benefit of the lanes. Users and non-users both believe the lanes offer a fair alternative to the commuting public. Likewise, public opinion gathered from other operating projects indicates that motorists of varied income levels take advantage of the managed lanes.”

Weinstein and Sciara report: HOT Lanes are not necessarily exclusionary: [For SR 91 in CA] “Over 30% of drivers from households earning less than $40,000 a year reported using the lanes at least occasionally” 

Some projects have funded alternative transportation services such as transit with revenues from the tolls;  toll credits to low-income users sitting in traffic on the regular lanes (sometimes called "Fast And Intertwined Regular Lanes," or FAIR lanes[1]); or tax credits toward HOT lane tolls for low-income commuters. 
[1] In a FAIR Lane scenario, regular lane users also have electronic transponders like those used collect tolls. Although these drivers are stuck in the congested regular lanes, they may accumulate credits that can later be used as toll payments for the priced lanes or they may pay for transit or similar services.

## Equity Analysis Findings

- Horizontal equity1 increased
- User pays; those who benefit the most pay the most
- Vertical equity2 achieved by off-setting benefits to low-income drivers
- transit options, revenue rebates, etc.
- Tolls no more regressive than gas tax

- 1fairness among individuals or groups with similar resources and needs
- 2fairness among individuals or groups with different resources and needs

**Notes:**
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute issued a summary of pricing (last updated May 9, 2005) as a part of its online Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia, entitled  “Road Pricing:  Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads, and HOT Lanes.” 

They find that:
Horizontal equity is increased, since users of the lanes are charged for costs they impose. (Additionally, the congestion reduction and community “livability” gains of pricing are considered substantial off-setting benefits to negative impacts.)

While tolls may be regressive, they are not necessarily more so than the traditional method of funding roads via taxation. 

## Equity Analysis Findings

- Financial burden will depend on
- the frequency and duration of roadway usage
-  whether there are travel alternatives to the tolled facility
- Burden may be expected to decline over time if
- program is predictably and gradually implemented
- users have time to adjust to the new prices
- users make different choices about locations in which to live and work.

- Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2005) TDM Encyclopedia

**Notes:**
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute issued a summary of pricing (last updated May 9, 2005) as a part of its online Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia, entitled  “Road Pricing:  Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads, and HOT Lanes.” 

A financial burden may be imposed on users who are dependent on the tolled roadway, however:
This burden may be expected to decline over time if the program is predictably and gradually implemented, with users having time to adjust to the new prices and even make different choices about locations in which to live and work.

The extent to which low income users are burdened will depend on the frequency and duration of their roadway usage; whether there are travel alternatives to the tolled facility and how toll revenues are used (e.g. to fund transit options or tax credits). 

## Equity Analysis FindingsI-15, San Diego

- There is a greater proportion of higher income drivers (e.g. households with annual incomes over $80,000) in the HOT lanes than in the un-tolled lanes.
- Low income drivers use the HOT lanes, but not as much as the un-tolled lanes. Drivers with household incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 a year made up 3% of FasTrak users, and 10% of drivers in the free lanes.
- There is broad public support of the HOT lane program

- Supernak, Janusz C. (2004) _[http://](http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm)__[www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm](http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm)_

## Equity Analysis FindingsSR-91, Orange County

- Drivers with higher incomes use the lanes for a greater proportion of their trips
- some low income persons are certainly among the frequent users
- No income group seems to consider it worthwhile to use the tolled lanes for every trip
- most users use them infrequently, when they perceive the greatest benefit

- Sullivan, Edward. 2004 _[http://](http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm)__[www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm](http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm)_

## Equity Analysis Findings Katy (I-10) Freeway in Houston, TX

- Enrollees of the QuickRide have higher incomes, and were younger, than drivers who did not enroll.
- The price/means of enrollment may prohibit some individuals with lower incomes from participating.

- Burris, Mark and Robert L. Hannay. 2003. Equity Analysis Of The Houston Quickride Project. Paper Submitted for TRB

**Notes:**
Enrollees of the QuickRide have higher incomes, and were younger, than drivers who did not enroll.
The price/means of enrollment may prohibit some individuals with lower incomes from participating. “To enroll in the program, a $15 transponder deposit was required, along with a $40 prepaid account. Each time a transponder was used, a $2 fee was deducted from the prepaid account. Once the account depleted to a value of $10, the user’s account was charged to bring the credit back to $40. A $2.50 monthly service fee was also charged for each transponder. A credit card was required to enroll in QuickRide. This requirement, along with the fees, could have made QuickRide prohibitively expensive for some users, particularly those with low incomes” (at page 12)

Burris, Mark; “Lee County Variable Pricing Project: Evaluation Report;” 2001.Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering – University of South Florida; Tampa, FL.
Burris, Mark and Robert L. Hannay. 2003. Equity Analysis Of The Houston Quickride Project. Paper Submitted for Publication and Presentation at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.
Burris, Mark and Michael Pietrzyk; 1998. “Plan for Monitoring Impacts, Evaluating and Assessing the Lee County Variable Pricing Program;” Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering – University of South Florida; Tampa, FL.

## Equity Analysis Findings

- Project operational details can be designed to improve equity
- Transponder distribution
- Credit card only vs. cash deposits
- Availability of lower up-front costs
- 27% of US households do not have a credit card at all
- 1 in 10 adults in the US does not have a bank account on which to draw a check or establish automatic transponder replenishment.

- Emily Parknay, “Environmental Justice Issues Related to Transponder Ownership and Road Pricing”. TRB 2005 CD-ROM

**Notes:**
Project operational details can be designed to improve equity, e.g. the way transponders are distributed, whether cash deposits or lower up-front costs are made available, etc.

Included in the Transportation Research Board’s 2005 Annual Meeting CD-ROM was a study by Emily Parknay entitled “Environmental Justice Issues Related to Transponder Ownership and Road Pricing”. 
Parknay finds that requirements for participating in programs that utilize transponders for electronic collection of tolls can represent real hurdles to low income households. Application processes, initial pre-payment of tolls, deposits, requirements for credit cards or payment by check, and burdensome distribution processes are all factors. 
As many as 27% of US households do not have a credit card at all.
Only 28.5% of households with incomes < $10K have one. 56.1% of household incomes between $10,000 and $24,999 do.
One in ten adults in the US does not have a bank account on which to draw a check or establish automatic transponder replenishment.
Total start-up costs for transponder programs vary between $20 and $115
For some households, prepayment of $40, $50 or even $20 in toll credits on the transponder will be cost prohibitive.

## Addressing Equity

- Commonly utilized strategies for pricing projects
- revenue expenditures;
- equity analysis;
- public involvement; and
- pilot projects

- Ranked by
- “direct action”

**Notes:**
In order to help address equity issues, pricing projects have begun to consider mechanisms for delivering direct benefits (of one form or another) to those priced out of the use of the facilities. 
In a study prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Asha Weinstein and Gian-Claudia Sciara (2004) identify four strategies that have been most commonly utilized by sponsors of HOT Lane projects to address equity concerns. 
Conducting a “highly proactive” public involvement and educational campaign.
Performing various detailed and explicit equity analyses (e.g. demographic characteristics of corridor/travel shed; O/D studies; existing transit options/alternate driving routes; include commitments to collect data and/or monitor impacts for years into project operations)  --  to inform and guide the effort toward an equitable outcome. 
Approaching projects as “pilot” efforts that will be carefully monitored and evaluated to ensure equity/impacts that are acceptable
Creating revenue expenditure plans which fund benefits/compensation to lower income stakeholders who would be adversely affected by the project.

I have attached my own qualitative assessment/ranking to these four strategies. (Ranked by “direct action”) Devoting revenue to impact mitigation is the most straightforward, unambiguous approach to addressing equity concerns. It demonstrates a belief that disproportionately high and adverse affects will occur as a result of the action, and that remedies are required to make low-income persons whole. Agencies/jurisdictions which create and implement compensatory strategies have, in my view, most thoroughly incorporated equity concerns into their formal planning and project development processes. (Before proceeding, I wish to make note the types of things I would consider a compensatory strategy. I have already listed tax credits; toll credits, or funding transit. To these I would add any explicit programs that attempt to address the high start-up costs of transponder ownership, or the need to have a credit card to make payments on them, and any other programs that identify a specific problem and then spend resources on a specific remedy.)

## Addressing Equity

- Jurisdictions Grouped
- The Actors
- The Deliberators

**Notes:**
I have chosen to group the projects into two categories. The first group is composed of project whose sponsors decided, up-front, to spend a portion of project revenues on mitigation for affected low-income groups.  At this time, the only mitigation that is currently in place (funded and functioning) is the enhancement or expansion of transit services, which is presumed to benefit low-income groups comprising the bulk of transit ridership. I will call this group “The Actors.” The second group includes project sponsors who have implemented any or all of the other three strategies. This group is called “The Deliberators.” 

## The Actors

- Minnesota’s I-394  (Hinnepin County)
- San Diego, California’s I-15
- Seattle, King County, Washington SR 167
- Port Authority of New York and New Jersey bridge and tunnel crossings

**Notes:**
The Actors
Minnesota’s I-394 (2005) (Hinnepin County): 
MN DOT partnered with the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute for an extensive public outreach campaign. A Value Pricing Advisory Task Force and Express Lanes Community Task Force were established to guide the implementation of the project. 
Revenues will be used first to pay the cost of project infrastructure, administration, maintenance and operations. Then, 50% will be used for  transit improvements and 50% for other corridor improvements (state law). 
Credit card required for transponder.
San Diego, California’s I-15 (1996):  
Revenues fund express bus service (The Inland Breeze) which operates in the corridor.
Extensive public involvement, including surveys, attitudinal panels, etc.
Extensive equity analysis (See highlights above). Federal funding supported numerous studies both before and after project implementation.
Seattle, King County, Washington SR 167: 
Proposed state legislation (ESHB 2808, 2004) authorizes a special multimodal account for all HOT lane toll moneys collected, specifiying that “[m]oneys in this account may be used for . . . debt service, planning, administration, construction, maintenance, operation, repair, rebuilding, enforcement, and expansion of high-occupancy toll lanes and to increase transit, vanpool and carpool, and trip reduction services in the corridor [emphasis added].” (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2808, State of Washington, 2004).  (Weinstein & Sciara, p. 13)
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey bridge and tunnel crossings:  
Higher peak-period toll 
Deliberate decision to impose uniform toll for all crossings (rather than charging higher tolls at crossings with multiple transit options, in order to encourage some modal shift to transit) in order to achieve “geographic” equity
Express buses in Lincoln Tunnel to serve express buses and paying drivers.

## The Deliberators

- Lee County, Florida Toll bridges
- The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (Hudson County):
- Orange County California’s SR-91
- I-10 (1998) and U.S. 290 (Houston, Harris County, TX)
- Orange County, California, San Joaquin Hills Toll Road (SR 73)

## Characteristics Analyzed

|   | State | % Minority | % Foreign born | % HS Grad | % Bach. degree or higher | Median Family Income | % Families below poverty | % Persons below poverty | % of Pop voting | % Dem Vote '92 | % Repub Vote '92 | % Perot Vote '92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| The Actors |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Hennepin |  MN                                       | 11% |        4.30  | 88.2 | 31.6 | 44189 | 6.4 | 9.2 | 57% | 47.5 | 30.6 | 21.1 |
| Hudson |  NJ                                         | 55% | 30.6 | 64.1 | 19.7 | 35250 | 12.4 | 14.8 | 33% | 53.9 | 35.9 | 7.9 |
| New York |  NY                                       | 56% | 25.8 | 75.3 | 42.2 | 36831 | 17.4 | 20.5 | 36% | 78.3 | 15.9 | 5.2 |
| King |  WA                                           | 17% | 9.3 | 88.2 | 32.8 | 44555 | 5 | 8 | 52% | 50.2 | 27.4 | 21.5 |
| San Diego |  CA                                      | 36% | 17.2 | 81.9 | 25.3 | 39798 | 8.1 | 11.3 | 39% | 37.2 | 35.7 | 26.3 |
|   | Average | 35% |        17.4  |        79.5  |        30.3  |  40,124.6  |        9.9  |        12.8  | 43% |        53.4  |        29.1  |        16.4  |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| The Deliborators |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Orange |  CA                                         | 36% | 23.9 | 81.2 | 27.8 | 51167 | 5.2 | 8.5 | 40% | 31.6 | 43.9 | 23.9 |
| Lee |  FL                                            | 12% | 5.2 | 76.9 | 16.4 | 32310 | 6.1 | 9.2 | 50% | 32.3 | 44.2 | 23.2 |
| Hudson |  NJ                                         | 55% | 30.6 | 64.1 | 19.7 | 35250 | 12.4 | 14.8 | 33% | 53.9 | 35.9 | 7.9 |
| Harris |  TX                                         | 46% | 14.3 | 74.9 | 25.4 | 36404 | 12.5 | 15.7 | 33% | 38.2 | 43.1 | 18.3 |
|   | Average | 37% |        18.5  |        74.3  |        22.3  |  38,782.8  |        9.1  |        12.1  | 39% |        39.0  |        41.8  |        18.3  |

**Notes:**
Most of the projects evaluated in this paper were open to the public in the late 1990s. Studies have shown that it takes between 4.4 – 5.5 years for a project to move through the environmental review process. Assuming there were at least a few years of early planning prior to the initiation of National Environmental Policy Act process, I have chosen the year 1990 as the baseline for various data points. This is intended to capture demographic and economic data within the context of the decision-making time-frame. 

The variables I selected for review included Total Population 1990; White Population 1990; Black Population1990; American Indian, Eskimo, Or Aleut Population 1990; Asian or Pacific Islander Population 1990; Hispanic Origin Population1990, Percent Minority (All Non-White Populations); Foreign Born Population, Percent Of Total 1990; Persons 25 Years And Over, Percent High School Graduate Or Higher 1990; Persons 25 Years And Over, Percent With Bachelor’s Degree Or Higher 1990; Median Family Money Income 1989; Percent Of Persons With Income Below Poverty Level 1989; Vote Cast For President 1992; Vote Cast For President, Percent Democratic 1992; Vote Cast For President, Percent Republican 1992; Vote Cast For President, Percent Perot 1992.

Data were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis; the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the University of Virginia Geospatial and Statistical Data Center.
Harris County Texas is the most populous; Lee County Florida is the least. Both of these jurisdictions were Deliberators. The county with the greatest percent minority population was New York. The lowest percent belonged to Hennepin County, Minnesota. Both of these jurisdictions were Actors. The range of values for the percent of the population voting among the Actor counties was 33% (Hudson, NJ) to 57% (Hennepin, MN), with an average of 43%.  Among the Deliberators, Harris County, TX and Hudson Co., NJ had the lowest percentage voting with 33%. (Hudson County, NJ was selected as the representative county for both the NJ Turnpike Project and the Lincoln Tunnel Project, so it appears in both groupings.) The highest percentage of voters among the Deliberators comes from Lee County, FL.

## Key Findings

- The Actors
- have fewer minorities or foreign-born persons;
- are more educated at both the high school and college levels;
- median income is higher, though the percent below poverty reports slightly higher.
- greater percentage of people vote
- more of them vote Democrat than Republican

## State Level Variables

|   | California | Florida | Minnesota  | New Jersey | New York | Texas | Washington |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Population 1990 | 29,959,515 | 13,033,307 | 4,389,857 | 7,762,963 | 18,020,784 | 17,056,755 | 4,903,043 |
| Roadway Miles (1993) | 169,202 | 112,977 | 129,958 | 35,054 | 111,882 | 294,139 | 79,432 |
| Total VMT 1990 | 258,926 | 109,997 | 38,946 | 58,923 | 106,902 | 156,578 | 44,695 |
| Urban Inst. VMT 1990 | 51,287 | 10,391 | 4,780 | 8,337 | 13,913 | 23,075 | 7,268 |

**Notes:**
Table 1 shows population and highway data for each of the States containing a variable pricing project. 

The variables Roadway Miles, Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Urban Interstate VMT are intended to show the relative size of each of the State DOT highway programs. 

As might be expected, California posts the largest numbers in those categories. Little can be said about this variable’s influence over decisions to address equity concerns, since one of the California projects was grouped with The Actors, and one with The Deliberators. 

It is worth noting that neither population nor highway program size appear to be a determining factor for the other States either; both Minnesota and Washington had projects in The Actors group and they are the two least populous and least highway-rich states.

## I-394 HOV/HOT Lanes

- I-394 HOV Lane built in 1992
- In 2003, Legislature authorized HOV conversion to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes
- Revenue Use:
- After project infrastructure, etc., 50% for transit improvements and 50% for corridor improvements (state law).

**Notes:**
Source: Minnesota DOT
Contact Nick Thompson, Project Manager
651-634-5310
nick.thompson@dot.state.mn.us
or 
Paul Czech, Planning Director
651-582-1771
paul.czec@dot.state.mn.us

## I-394 Express LanesCommunity Task Force

- 22-person group of leaders and citizens appointed by the Governor and Lt. Governor and communities
- Bi-partisan and diverse make-up, local representatives
- Reviewed express lane issues
- Prices, access, enforcement, hours of operation, etc.
- Provided input to Mn/DOT
- Also sought input from interested people and groups
- Open Houses, Focus Groups, Community Council presentations

## But that was only after . . .

- a “tumultuous history with other road pricing project proposals”.
- a “decade of public discussion and political debate”
- a Citizen’s Jury1 process revealed that the “public overwhelmingly rejected the notion”
- the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
- “carried out a research, education, and communications strategy for value pricing during 2002 and 2003 to help generate interest and support”

**A Value Pricing Education and Outreach Model: The I-394 MnPASS Community Task Force **
**TRB Paper No. 06-2250 By Kenneth R. Buckeye and Lee W. Munnich, Jr. **

**Notes:**
1 Minnesota Road Pricing Study, Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council, 1997, Technical Memorandum No. 4 Citizens Jury Results. Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, State and Local Policy Project with Wilbur Smith Associates. 

## Task Force Model Was Key

- Traditional public involvement models fall short
- limited interaction
- too little opportunity to respond and integrate public input
- The process Mn/DOT pursued required sharing control of project details and decisions

**A Value Pricing Education and Outreach Model: The I-394 MnPASS Community Task Force **
**TRB Paper No. 06-2250 By Kenneth R. Buckeye and Lee W. Munnich, Jr. **

**Notes:**
, which may include open houses and formal hearings, of providing meaningful public deliberations and decision making. These approaches allow for only between stakeholders and transportation agencies, leaving citizens feeling that their questions and concerns are not being addressed, and giving the transportation agency into the solution. More importantly, it is very difficult to establish a level of trust and ownership with public sessions that only allow limited opportunity for involvement in key decisions. 
, 

## Other Lessons Learned

- Top-Level Champions are Helpful
- Governor used highly visible platform to thoroughly explain the issue to skeptical stakeholders and citizens.
- “Grasstops” Coalition Is a Prerequisite
- Leaders built a peer-to-peer coalition
- Coalition Requires Constant Maintenance
- Required tending by individuals with experience in managing diverse public policy–oriented coalitions.

**Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned by **Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland *Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,*
*No. 1932, *Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.

## Other Lessons Learned

- Preparation Must Precede Promotion
- Every time they answered a question “we don’t know yet,” public skepticism about the feasibility of the proposal grew.
- No Question Goes Unanswered
- “An accusation unanswered can quickly become an accusation believed.”
- Customize Messages
- A one-size-fits-all message didn’t work

**Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned by **Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland *Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,*
*No. 1932, *Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.

## Other Lessons Learned

- Show, Don’t Just Tell
- even people who are well briefed on the concept of value pricing have a difficult time fully understanding it
- videotape of underutilized local HOV lanes and successful HOT lanes in other parts of the country
- In meetings, actual transponders were often passed out to help people see and feel how electronic tolling would work.

**Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned by **Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland *Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,*
*No. 1932, *Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.

## Some More TRB resources

- Presenting Congestion Charging to the Public: Exampes from Edinburgh and London (P03-6556)
- Alasdair Cain, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
- Lessons Learned from California's Successes and Failures in Value Pricing (P03-6557)
- Ed Regan, Wilbur Smith Associates
- Public's Response to Florida's Value Pricing Projects (P03-6558)
- Kris Cella, Cella & Associates, Inc.
- Involving the Public in a New Concept: Managed Lanes (P03-6559)
- Tina Collier, Texas A&M University