Guidebook for State, Regional, and 

Local Governments on Addressing 

Potential Equity Impacts of Road 

Pricing

April 2013

FHWA-HOP-13-033
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information 

contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The 

U.S. Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names 

appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used 

to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes for continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-HOP-13-033

2. Government 

Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on 

Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

5. Report Date

April 2013

6. Performing Organization Code:

7. Author(s)

Marwan Madi (BAH), John Wiegmann (BAH), Dr. Emily 

Parkany (BAH), Myron Swisher (SAIC), Jennifer Symoun 

(SAIC)

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

11251 Roger Bacon Drive, 3rd Floor

Reston, VA 20190

Booz Allen Hamilton

8283 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-06-D-00005

DTFH61-06-D-00006

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HOTM

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTM: Ms. Angela Jacobs, Federal Highway Administration Office of Transportation Management

16. Abstract

This guidebook is designed to assist transportation agencies to better assess and mitigate perceived and potential equity 

impacts of road pricing projects on local communities, commuters, and system users. Addressing potential equity issues is 

often vital to obtaining support needed to implement road pricing projects. In order for road pricing projects to succeed, the 

implementing state, regional, and local agencies must understand equity issues, develop mitigating measures, and articulate 

the issues and mitigation strategies to both the decision makers and the public. This guidebook will help agencies understand

and communicate both the horizontal and vertical equities of their road pricing policies and projects.

17. Key Words

Road pricing, congestion pricing, transportation equity, 

priced managed lanes

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. 

(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

71

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii
iii

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose and Introduction................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose of Study.................................................................................................................2

2.0 Congestion Pricing Strategies – Illustrative Scenarios.....................................................................5

3.0 Congestion Pricing Equity - Definition and Factors..........................................................................7

3.1 Definition of Types of Equity...............................................................................................7

3.2 Equity Units of Analysis.......................................................................................................9

3.3 Definitions of “Impacts of Concern” by Equity Type and Analysis Unit............................11

3.4 Definitions of Measures to Assess Potential Equity Impact .............................................11

3.5 State and Local Consideration for Equity Type, Category, Impacts of Concern, and 

Measures ..........................................................................................................................13

3.6 Classification of Equity in Congestion and Road Pricing Initiatives – Illustrative Examples

..........................................................................................................................................13

4.0 Incorporating Equity in the Transportation Planning Process.......................................................14

4.1 General Guidelines to Consider when Incorporating Equity in the Transportation 

Planning Process...............................................................................................................14

4.2 An Example of Equity Analysis: Environmental Justice.....................................................15

4.3 Incorporating Equity in the Transportation Planning Process – Illustrative Examples.....17

5.0 Evaluating Equity at the Project Level ...........................................................................................19

5.1 Procedure for Evaluating Equity at the Project Level .......................................................19

5.2 Evaluating the Impacts of Road Pricing Projects – Qualitative and Quantitative 

Techniques........................................................................................................................19

5.3 Evaluating Equity at the Project Level – Illustrative Examples.........................................22

6.0 Strategies to Address and Mitigate the Impacts of Congestion Pricing ........................................24

6.1 Congestion Pricing Remediation Strategies in the Literature...........................................24

6.2 Post-Implementation Road Pricing Remediation Strategies — Equity Audit Tool ...........28

6.3 Road Pricing Remediation Strategies – Illustrative Examples ..........................................28

7.0 The Role of Communications in Congestion Pricing Initiatives .....................................................30

7.1 Congestion Pricing Communication Strategies – What and How, Illustrative Examples .33

8.0 Recommendations and Next Steps................................................................................................35

8.1 Recommendations............................................................................................................35

8.2 Next Steps.........................................................................................................................36

Appendix A: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................38

Appendix B: Potential Remediation Strategies..........................................................................................46

Appendix C: Bibliography............................................................................................................................54
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

iv
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

1

1.0 PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Addressing potential equity issues is often vital to obtaining the support needed to implement road 

pricing projects. In order for road pricing projects to succeed, the implementing State, regional, and 

local agencies must understand equity issues, develop mitigating measures, and articulate the issues 

and mitigation strategy to both decisionmakers and the public. These steps are necessary because 

equity is a paradox: what may appear equitable in one dimension can be construed as inequitable in 

another. 

Much has been learned over the past two decades both from successful projects and those that have 

not reached implementation but from which best practices can be derived. As a result, an equity 

guidebook is needed to provide agencies interested in implementing road pricing strategies with tools 

and methodology to properly address equity issues. 

Early consideration of equity issues is critical to the success of road pricing projects.

Equity concerns have been raised in the development stages of most proposed road pricing projects in 

the United States and abroad. Experience from projects that have reached implementation has shown 

that with proper consideration of equity and associated mitigation measures, road pricing projects can 

be successful. Most projects currently in operation have found pricing scheme acceptance levels to be 

similar in low-, mid-, and high-income groups. 

Recent projects have illustrated the importance of appropriate and timely consideration of equity in the 

ultimate success of major pricing projects and programs. As part of Washington State DOT’s (WSDOT) 

Urban Partnership Agreement, the agency proposed to impose variable electronic tolls on all lanes of an 

existing non-tolled floating bridge on SR-520. The existing bridge was in need of replacement and there 

was not adequate funding available for the project. Such a strategy – tolling of existing non-tolled 

infrastructure to raise revenue for its replacement – has been considered for many projects nationwide, 

as our transportation infrastructure ages. However, no other agencies have succeeded in making the 

case to the public and decisionmakers to take this controversial step. 

The WSDOT designed a strong public process to help build support for roadway pricing. A tolling

implementation committee was established in 2010 to gauge and build public support and to provide 

guidance to the legislature. The committee succeeded in demonstrating the need for replacing the 

deteriorating existing bridge and the resulting mobility benefits of doing so to all users of all income 

levels. The WSDOT worked with the regional transit agency to initiate a substantial increase in express 

bus service within the SR 520 corridor for several months leading up to the start of bridge tolling. This 

created an expanded transit market and helped to reduce traffic diversion effects. In addition, WSDOT 

provided traffic mitigation funds to local agencies to assist in dealing with the expected traffic diversion. 

Toll collection began in December 2011 and has been received favorably by the public.

A key lesson learned from these congestion pricing projects is that equity issues should be addressed at 

the earliest practical phase in project development because those who perceive inequity are likely to 

object to the project’s implementation. 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

2

Road pricing projects of all kinds (tolling, HOT lanes, congestion pricing, parking, and vehicle-miles 

traveled (VMT) fees) are expected to become more important in the United States over the next decade. 

The U.S. Federal gas tax and many State gas taxes are not tracked to inflation. As an increasing 

percentage of the vehicle fleet switches to higher efficiency hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and non-gasoline 

modes such as electric, the gas tax revenues will continue to decline and will be insufficient to cover 

operations and maintenance costs. In this financial environment, funding for new infrastructure, needed 

to keep pace with expansion of vehicle miles traveled in congested cities, is even more scarce. To deal 

with this lack of funds, States may begin financing transportation projects more heavily from the sales 

tax, but this is highly regressive by any vertical equity measure. Schweitzer and Taylor stated, “Using 

sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of 

driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionally favors the more affluent 

at the expense of the impoverished.”1Alternatively, State and local agencies may employ road pricing 

more extensively, such as current legislative changes being promoted in Oregon, and will thus need to 

quickly address vertical equity issues. 

The need for a road pricing equity guidebook for State and local agencies

In today’s challenging financial and political environment, State and local transportation agencies need a 

common reference both to understand and to explain potential road pricing equity issues in common 

terms and using a consistent set of measurements. This guidebook will greatly help them understand 

and communicate both the horizontal and vertical equities of their plans or policies to reach a common 

understanding among key decisionmakers and stakeholders. This is especially true today as policy 

initiatives for sustainability, the environment, efficiency of provided services and congestion or demand 

management are key objectives for many transportation organizations. In the wake of the recent 

economic downturn, the funding and maintenance of our infrastructure will continue to dominate our 

debate for years in the future. These funding debates could raise further equity concerns. 

1.2 Purpose of Study

Many road pricing projects and systems have been successfully implemented, despite experiencing 

setbacks in the concept development and planning stages with respect to equity concerns and other 

issues. Often, the perception of equity imbalances has been a significant issue introduced in the 

environmental review process, however it has been successfully mitigated through careful and 

thoughtful programs.

In order to assist transportation agencies to better assess and mitigate perceived and potential equity 

impacts of road pricing projects on local communities, commuters, and system users, the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a “Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on 

Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing.” The guidebook:

• Provides comprehensive procedures and guidance to State, regional, and local agencies as well 

as decisionmakers and concerned citizens to follow when considering road pricing projects to 

ensure that equity is appropriately and adequately addressed;

 1

Schweitzer, L. and B. D. Taylor. “Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales 

Taxes.” Transportation, 35(6). 2008, pp. 797-812.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

3

• Focuses primarily on time-of-day variable pricing as it may be applied to cordon and area-wide 

pricing, facility pricing (including high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, express toll lanes, and

traditional toll roads), and parking pricing. 

• Is built upon:

o A comprehensive literature review of existing road/congestion pricing equity research 

and applications;

2

o A series of interviews with government staff, academics, private sector representatives, 

and other subject matter experts knowledgeable about road pricing equity; and

o A workshop held in Washington, D.C. in October 2011 to review and finalize the 

guidebook. The workshop was attended by road/congestion pricing and equity experts 

including government officials, researchers and academics, as well as private sector 

representatives.

3

• Includes two road pricing scenarios/case studies identified by FHWA. These include:

o Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies 

for the first time.

o Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network.

The remainder of the guidebook includes the following:

Section 2.0: Congestion and Road Pricing Strategies – Illustrative Scenarios describes two examples of 

relevant road pricing strategies that will be used throughout the guidebook for illustration purposes.

Section 3.0: Congestion and Road Pricing Equity – Definition and Factors provides a comprehensive 

review of equity concepts that should be considered during congestion pricing discussions.

Section 4.0: Incorporating Equity in the Transportation Planning Process describes how agencies 

should integrate equity indicators in transportation and project planning processes; and how to measure 

congestion pricing equity impacts both qualitatively and quantitatively. 

Section 5.0: Evaluating Equity at the Project Level presents a methodology that can be used to measure 

congestion pricing equity impacts both qualitatively and quantitatively. 

Section 6.0: Strategies to Address and Mitigate the Impacts of Congestion Pricing provides a 

comprehensive approach for minimizing the impacts of tolling and parking pricing initiatives on local 

communities and system users.

Section 7.0: The Role of Communications in Congestion Pricing Initiatives presents a summary on 

communications methods and strategies to address equity when seeking to successfully implement 

pricing projects.

 2 The findings from the Literature Review are summarized in a report entitled Development of a 

Guidebook for State and Local Governments on Evaluating and Mitigating Equity Impacts of Road 

Pricing, Task 1 - Background Paper. 3 The findings from the Workshop are summarized in a report entitled Development of a Guidebook for 

State and Local Governments on Evaluating and Mitigating Equity Impacts of Road Pricing, Task 2 –

Summary Report on Workshop Findings.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

4

Section 8.0: Recommendations and Next Steps

Appendix A: Glossary provides a detailed definition of key equity terms, types of equity, mitigation 

terms, key policy definitions, and other useful terms.

Appendix B: Detailed Review of Potential Remediation Strategies for Congestion Pricing Equity 

Impacts

Appendix C: Bibliography
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

5

2.0 CONGESTION PRICING STRATEGIES – ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIOS

As discussed in Section 1.0, two illustrative scenarios were identified during discussions with FHWA staff 

and discussions with subject matter experts, academics, practitioners, and State and local agencies. 

These examples were deemed relevant for the purpose of this guidebook and include the following case 

studies:

• Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the 

first time.

• Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network.

Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the 

first time

In this scenario, it is very important to consider equity at all stages of the project to ensure a successful 

implementation and lay the groundwork for future road pricing projects in the region. In a region where 

travelers are unfamiliar with road pricing, communications of the project objectives, needs, and use of 

the funding are paramount. Equity issues should be analyzed and presented proactively and as early as 

practical. It can be difficult to gain public support, especially if there are perceived equity issues that are 

not being adequately considered. Incorporating equity considerations into the earliest stages of the 

planning process is critical in that equity issues that arise for the first time during later phases tend to 

delay or block project implementation. 

Agency and Region New to Pricing

For the purposes of this guidebook, we will think in terms of an agency and a region new to pricing as 

follows: county X has two urban areas separated by a 12 mile long, eight-lane freeway. Ten years ago, 

the county widened the roadway from three lanes to four lanes (each direction) by adding a High 

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane alongside the three general purpose lanes. However, the HOV lane has 

been consistently underutilized, leaving the highly congested general purpose lanes adjacent to the low 

volume HOV lane. The agency is considering an HOV to HOT conversion, which will allow carpools 

(HOVs) and buses to continue to use the HOT lane for free but charge a fee to ineligible vehicles to use 

the lane. 

Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network

In this scenario, the original facility should be well established and evaluated, and there should be an 

awareness of the current road pricing conditions in terms of effectiveness, acceptance, and an 

awareness of pricing. Few equity-related problems are being caused by or perceived within the current 

HOT lane system. For this scenario, expansion can be considered either by extending the length of the 

facility, expanding the capacity of the existing facility, expanding into a network of priced roadways, or 

implementing a cordon pricing scheme.

Expansion can be highly rewarding and very effective in dealing with the growing challenges of

congestion and a limited ability to expand freeway capacity due to construction costs, right-of-way 

constraints, and environmental and societal impacts. This scenario is very much related to the concept 

of “managed lanes,” defined as “highway facilities or a set of lanes where operational strategies are 

proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions.” In expansion projects, it is 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

6

important to consider cooperation across agencies and geographical borders as these projects 

frequently cross jurisdictional boundaries. Careful planning and project development is key to 

successful implementation. As the system expands, equity may be a larger issue than when only one 

road was priced. Other equity considerations, such as rural and urban issues, should be addressed as 

well as the market and societal equity at either end or either side of the project boundaries. 

Tolling Expansion

For the purposes of this guidebook, we will think in terms of a city planning to expand tolling along its 

roadway network as follows: city Y currently accessible from three directions: north, south, and east. 

The north Interstate currently has an HOT lane while the south Interstate only has general purpose 

lanes. The east access road is a highway corridor with an adjacent arterial, also un-priced. Due to 

current budget shortfalls, funding is insufficient to add general purpose lanes to the south Interstate and 

east highways. Thus, expanding the HOT network to these facilities, utilizing their existing footprints, is

now being considered. 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

7

3.0 CONGESTION PRICING EQUITY - DEFINITION AND FACTORS

Section 3.0 provides a comprehensive definition of congestion and road pricing equity and describes the 

elements or factors that should be considered when evaluating the impacts of road pricing projects on 

communities and transportation system users. 

3.1 Definition of Types of Equity

In simplest terms, equity means treating people of all social groups equally. In order for this definition to 

be meaningful, a definition of the following characteristics is needed:

• What constitutes equal treatment (called equity type), and

• Which social groupings are being observed (called equity category or unit of analysis).

Because equity is a very broad topic, the scope of equity being discussed should be limited. In addition 

to equity type and the category or unit of analysis, two further characteristics must be identified: 

impacts of concern and measures to assess equity impact. Impacts of concern are the aspects of the 

lives of travelers that are affected by the transportation or pricing project. Typical categories of impacts 

that are relevant to transportation equity include financial/economic, transportation service, or 

environmental impacts. Sometimes these impacts of concern are referred to as “social exclusions,” 

which means the transportation system by either price, area of service, or vehicle category is perceived 

to be biased against a social class, poor neighborhood, or beyond the financial reach of a percentage of 

the population; for example, a new highway that does not have an interchange at or near the lower 

income housing area of the urban center. Another example is an electric vehicle that does not pay any 

fuel taxes but is priced sufficiently high that only the upper economic classes can afford to buy one. This 

latter example is a new concern as high efficiency and alternate fuel vehicles start entering the overall 

vehicle fleet. 

In order to compare the equity discussions from one project to another, the impacts must be measured 

in units that allow comparison across projects of different size, passenger utilization, etc. Such measures 

may be per capita, per vehicle mile, per trip, etc. In terms of “social inequities,” for example, the 

measure to assess equity impacts between an electric vehicle and carbon-based fuel vehicle could be 

translated to the dollar value of tax paid by one versus the other. Alternatively, one could translate it to 

the amount of lane miles driven per refill to show the social inequity of a plug-in hybrid versus vehicle 

versus a conventional carbon-based fuel vehicle. In either example, the measures of comparison must 

be comparative to show the degree of social inequity of one case versus another.

Economists and social theorists have defined several types of equity that can be applied to 

transportation projects. At the highest level, the categories are horizontal equity and vertical equity. 

Every system can be defined in terms of horizontal social equity and vertical equity at any point along 

the horizontal axis. Typically, social inequity is a horizontal measure while social exclusion is a vertical 

equity argument.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

8

Horizontal Equity

Horizontal equity, also called fairness and egalitarianism, defines equity as the equal distribution of 

impacts (costs and benefits) between distinct individuals and groups that are considered equal in ability 

or need. Horizontal equity means that each group of the same class is treated the same. Horizontal 

equity makes no claim whatsoever about distribution between different classes. Horizontal equity 

generally falls into two categories: opportunity equity and market equity. Agencies often achieve 

horizontal equity by applying principals of both.

Opportunity Equity 

Opportunity equity requires that costs and benefits are assigned in proportion to the size of the group 

without regard to any other group characteristics. In the case of road pricing, opportunity equity means 

that the costs and benefits of a new transportation project should be divided proportionately among 

social groups. An example of opportunity equity in road pricing is with respect to geography: each 

individual pays the same rate regardless of starting point. This means that one-way tolls, such as are 

used on some bridges in the Northeast, do not exhibit full horizontal equity (though many people using 

these bridges make round-trips and thus pay an equal toll, there is a small population who do not and 

thus are exposed to horizontally inequity). Opportunity equity is a type of horizontal equity because it 

does not consider the resources, socio-economic class, etc., of individuals.

Market Equity

Market equity in road pricing is achieved when the price charged to each individual or group is in direct 

proportion to the costs imposed and the benefits received by the individual or group. An example of 

market equity in road pricing would be setting a congestion charge for a driver entering a congested 

area at a specific time to correspond precisely to the cost of the induced delay the driver imposed upon 

other drivers—as the amount of imposed delay would vary by the level of congestion, the price would 

correspondingly vary. Market equity is a type of horizontal equity because it does not consider the 

resources, class, etc., of individuals—everyone pays the same market-based rate. 

Vertical Equity or Outcome Equity

Vertical or outcome equity refers to the distribution of impacts (costs and benefits) across social groups 

that differ in ability and/or need. The principle of vertical equity is that individuals with less ability 

and/or more need should bear less of the cost and/or accrue more of the benefits of a project, and 

conversely, that individuals with more ability and/or less need should bear more of the cost and/or 

accrue more of the benefits of the project. The minimum statement of vertical equity is that the worst 

off should be made no worse off. Social groupings used in vertical equity include income or social class, 

or with respect to mobility need and ability. In road pricing projects, a type of vertical equity with 

respect to income is achieved by noting that lower income individuals are more likely to use buses or 

other forms of public transportation. Thus when a flat road charge is imposed by an agency creating 

more vertical inequity (because the lower income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income 

for the charge than higher income individuals), the inequity can be mitigated by increasing public 

transportation service to, from, and within the area subject to the road charge.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

9

Additional Types of Equity

• Spatial Equity - The extent to which benefits and costs are distributed equally over space.

• Intergenerational Equity - The extent to which benefits and losses/costs are distributed to the 

present or the future.

• Social Equity - The extent to which allocation is proportionate to need.

• Operational Equity - The extent to which benefits and costs are distributed among system users 

for different operational strategies. With the greater prevalence of dynamic pricing that varies 

with congestion, the same facility may have prices that vary from day to day in addition to time 

of day. Thus, a trip at 7:30 a.m. may be priced differently on Monday than it is on Wednesday 

or even on Monday of the previous week. 

Horizontal, vertical, and spatial equities are often considered in road pricing projects. Spatial equity is 

often cited as a key reason for expanding a toll network to adjacent regions to allow a larger population 

to benefit from additional travel options, including priced lanes with faster travel times and/or new 

transit service. Interregional equity is a priority when an agency is considering long-term lease

agreements with private companies and may receive a lump-sum payment now, but toll users will pay 

far into the future. Market, social, and operational equity are addressed or accounted for less often. 

Table 3-1: Taxonomy of Transportation Equity

Type Subtype Description

Horizontal Opportunity Groups/individuals of the same ability/need are given 

costs/benefits in proportion to their size

Market Groups/individuals of the same ability/need are charged a 

cost in proportion to benefits received

Vertical/Outcome Groups/individuals of differing ability/need achieve the same 

result

These different types of equity often overlap and conflict. For example, horizontal equity requires that 

users bear the costs of their transportation facilities and services, but vertical equity often requires 

subsidies for disadvantaged people. Transportation planning often involves making tradeoffs between 

different equity objectives. State and local government officials will want to understand equity

considerations so that they can explain the equity issues to the public on a given road pricing project.

3.2 Equity Units of Analysis

The primary scope of an equity measurement is its category or unit of analysis, the grouping of 

individuals for whom equity is analyzed. Typical units of analysis for equity include geographic, 

stakeholder groups, and individuals. Of these units, stakeholder groups are among the most commonly 

analyzed in transportation equity literature. This section will provide some examples of different types 

of stakeholder groups as applied to the above types of equity. The guidebook will be used by state and 

local governments so the team will highlight state and local governments as a stakeholder group, 

separately from other groups such as the American Highway Users Alliance or other advocate groups.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

10

For horizontal equity analysis, stakeholder groups may be ethnic groups, groups who primarily use one 

mode of transportation (transit, passenger vehicle, walk/bike), or other groups. A new type of horizontal 

equity concerns infrastructure payment by various stakeholder groups. This focuses on equity of each 

class of user of the mobility network paying their own share for the use of the network infrastructure. 

Payment for infrastructure has long been based on the ubiquitous use of fuel taxes paid into a dedicated 

(hypothecated) fund (the Highway Trust Fund). The advance of electric, plug-in hybrids, high-efficiency 

petroleum, and hydrogen fuel vehicles has created new classes of road users. These new classes are not 

buying fuel and paying proportionate taxes to support the infrastructure they use. Drivers of fully 

electric vehicles such as the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf (which sold out its first year model run of 

20,000 vehicles) are paying no fuel tax towards highway infrastructure whatsoever. From the 

perspective of horizontal equity with respect to infrastructure payment, this situation is not equitable, 

though it may encourage adoption of the use of lower emissions vehicles.

Vertical equity is commonly measured with respect to stakeholders grouped by income or social class: 

lower income classes should bear less of the cost and/or accrue more of the benefits than upper income 

classes. An alternative application of vertical equity is achieved by grouping stakeholders according to 

mobility need and ability. This application says in essence that those who have greatest need for 

mobility and/or are least capable of accessing transportation should accrue the most benefits and/or 

pay the least costs for a transportation project. By grouping stakeholders according to mobility need 

and ability, equity measures the degree to which the transportation system meets the needs of travelers 

with special constraints and is frequently invoked to justify paratransit services.

Payment Medium Access Equity

One significant stakeholder group affected by road pricing projects are “unbanked” people—people who 

have no bank accounts, by choice or because they lack the financial means. Some agencies require that 

users have bank accounts in order to obtain the means to pay the fare on a given road pricing project. 

Yet the number of unbanked people remains as high as 10-20 percent in many places, and denying these 

people access to priced road projects can significantly harm equity.

4 Those tolling projects require users 

to have transponders, thus preventing the legal usage of the facility by a significant portion of the 

population, a situation that would be considered inequitable by both vertical and horizontal measures. 

Many other facilities also allow users to pay video tolling fees (a camera reads the license plate and the 

owner is billed by mail), which are slightly higher than the EZ-Pass fees, to account for additional costs of 

processing. While this arrangement allows unbanked individuals to use the project legally, it requires 

them to pay more than others, which is also inequitable by standard vertical and horizontal measures. 

Measures to mitigate this equity issue include providing transponders to drivers using cash, and 

providing cash “top up” stations(kiosks that allow account holders to pay cash to increase their balance)

at supermarkets or gas stations; or simply allowing video tolling for the same price as transponder 

tolling—a measure sure to substantially increase operating costs due to the inherent inefficiencies in 

 4 Parkany, Emily, “Environmental Justice Issues Related to Transponder Ownership and Road Pricing,” 

Transportation Research Record, a Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1932, 2005, pages 97-108.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

11

video tolling. Maryland’s Intercounty Connector is one of several road pricing facilities in the United 

States that allows payments with an EZ-Pass, which requires users to have either a bank account or to 

pay by cash.

3.3 Definitions of “Impacts of Concern” by Equity Type and Analysis Unit

“Impacts of concern” refer to the changes in the lives of the traveling public (as divided according to the 

categories or units of analysis) caused by the transportation project for which equity implications will be 

observed. There are three main groups of impacts of concern that are observed for road pricing 

projects:

• Financial and economic user costs and benefits: this group of impacts includes the direct 

financial and economic costs and benefits of the transportation project to both users of the 

system and those living in the region affected by the system. User financial costs include direct 

financial costs (charges) and indirect financial costs (transponder rental, banking costs, costs 

incurred changing routes or times to avoid the charges). Non-user financial costs may include 

upfront costs for implementing the system (typically taken from general funds). Financial and 

economic benefits experienced by both users and non-users include overall greater economic 

productivity and growth due to more efficient use of the transportation system. 

• Transportation system impacts: user transportation benefits may include increased service 

quality, travel time reductions (decrease in congestion or delays), or increase in trip time 

reliability. These benefits may be experienced not only by road system users but also by transit 

users in systems where transit receives funding from road revenues or where transit services 

utilize the road pricing system (e.g., buses through the tolled region). Transportation harms may 

include extra traffic on areas bordering pricing regions.

• External impacts: this group includes the impacts that the transportation activity has on all 

individuals external to the transportation transaction. Specific external impacts may include 

environmental impacts (such as net CO2 emissions, or emissions of polluting gases such as NOx), 

safety impacts (increases or decreases in road safety), and congestion/delay impacts (road delay 

or congestion caused by traveling). 

Non-users are potentially important in terms of equity impacts. Affected non-users include travelers 

using adjacent non-priced facilities, residents and business owners along the priced facility, residents 

and business owners on the adjacent facilities, existing transit riders that may be affected by a larger 

number of transit riders and improved transit service, etc. User costs and benefits will include prepricing-implementation users of the road that benefit from a road pricing project and pre-pricing users 

that may accrue non-benefits (detrimental costs) from a road-pricing project and thus may not be able 

to continue to use the road at their preferred times.

3.4 Definitions of Measures to Assess Potential Equity Impact

The size, scope, and average daily traffic on pricing facilities vary widely. To allow for comparison 

between projects or between the present situation and the future situation (after the project is built), 

the equity impacts must employ measures that account for the size of the project. There are several 

measures to assess equity impacts that allow for comparisons, including the following:

• Per capita: what are the impacts per person using the pricing project? This can further be 

refined by specific groups: per adult, per commuter, per household, etc. Per capita measures 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

12

treat all passengers equally, whether they are driving single-occupancy vehicles or riding in large 

transit vehicles.

• Per vehicle mile: what are the impacts per vehicle mile traveled by any vehicle in the pricing 

project? This can further be refined by specifying the type of roadway (per highway mile, per 

arterial mile) and/or the type of vehicle (per bus mile, per car mile). Per vehicle mile measures 

treat all vehicles equally, regardless of occupancy.

• Per trip: what are the impacts per trip taken? This measure is not the same as per capita, 

because travelers do not always take the same number of trips per week: some may take 2 per 

day, while some may take many more. This can be further refined by specifying the purpose or 

time of the trip: per commute trip, per peak-period trip, etc. Like per capita, per trip measures 

treat all passengers equally, regardless of their mode or vehicle.

• Per dollar: what are the impacts of the program per dollar paid for the charge? This can be 

further refined by specifying the type of expenditure: dollar of user fee paid, dollar of tax paid.

Table 3-2 summarizes the main possibilities of the four characteristics that define equity.

Table 3-2: Indicative List of the four Characteristics that Define Equity5

Types of Equity Categories/

Units of Analysis

Impacts of Concern Measures to 

Assess Equity 

Impact

Horizontal

Opportunity

Market

Vertical/Outcome

Income

Geographic (location)

Demographic (race, 

gender, etc.)

Ability

Mode

Vehicle type

Trip Type 

Financial / Economic

Price/Fare structure

Economic opportunity & 

development

Other Financial/ Economic

Transportation Service

Delay

Reliability

Other service quality metrics

External

Crash risk

Induced congestion

Emissions

Noise

Per Capita

Per Trip

Per vehicle mile

Per Dollar

 5Adapted from Litman, T. (2002), “Evaluating Transportation Equity,” World Transport Policy & Practice,

Volume 8, No. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 50-65. Updated version available at: 

http://www.islandnet.com/~litman/equity.pdf. 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

13

3.5 State and Local Consideration for Equity Type, Category, Impacts of Concern, and 

Measures

During the initial phase of project evaluation, agencies should develop a plan to identify the equity 

factors that should be considered when assessing the impacts of road pricing strategies. As 

demonstrated in Table 3-2, for each road pricing strategy agencies should answer the following 

questions:

• What types of potential equity impacts should be evaluated for the proposed road pricing 

strategy?

• What are the equity categories most likely affected by the proposed pricing strategy?

• What are the likely qualitative and quantitative impacts that would result should the proposed 

congestion strategy be implemented?

• What measurement units should agencies use to best measure the costs and benefits of the 

proposed congestion strategy?

The process of incorporating equity analysis into the transportation planning process and the methods 

to evaluate the impacts of congestion and road pricing strategies are discussed further in Sections 4 and 

5. 

3.6 Classification of Equity in Congestion and Road Pricing Initiatives – Illustrative Examples

As discussed earlier, the two scenarios identified in Section 2.0 are used in the remaining sections of this 

report to help demonstrate new concepts and guidelines. These scenarios are intended to be illustrative 

rather than comprehensive. Each scenario will likely need to address multiple types of equity.

Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the 

first time

State, regional, and/or local agencies should consider how groups with different incomes are impacted 

by high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. HOT lanes are considered relatively equitable since a free 

alternative is adjacent to the tolled alternative. As an example of equity classification and evaluation, 

transportation agencies should evaluate the travel time differences of drivers of all incomes and races 

between taking the tolled lane vs. the adjacent free lanes. This way they can consider what income 

proportion is used when paying the toll and for how much travel time savings.

Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network

State, regional, and local agencies considering expanding an existing toll system should account for the 

entire network effects of expanding their system. Now that multiple roads are under consideration for 

tolling, potential geographic impacts, market and societal equity come into play. It may be that drivers 

from certain communities now have fewer un-priced choices. Evaluation may include estimating tolls by 

minute of travel time savings offset by additional transit service using the faster tolled lanes.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

14

4.0 INCORPORATING EQUITY IN THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Equity analysis will be most effective if it is incorporated into the development of road pricing projects 

from the beginning. This is especially true of the design of the pricing structure, where failure to address 

equity concerns may necessitate a complete reanalysis. 

4.1 General Guidelines to Consider when Incorporating Equity in the Transportation 

Planning Process

There are some general guidelines that all public agencies contemplating road pricing projects should 

follow in order to measure and evaluate equity impacts. It is likely that the same agency or group of 

agencies that is proposing a project will be responsible for all aspects of the project, including 

evaluation, implementing potential remediation schemes, and communicating about the project. In 

theory, the evaluation and its results should be independent from the entity performing the evaluation, 

be it a State or a local department of transportation, a Metropolitan Planning Organization, or any other 

planning authority. In practice, these agencies may need to participate in the evaluation as they may 

control the revenue generated. When this is the case, all of the participating agencies should be 

involved and the process should be open and transparent. All agencies should try to follow guidelines

and procedures consistent with those listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Equity Evaluation Guidelines

Step1. Consider any potential equity impacts of pricing early in the project—during the planning and 

design phases. 

Step 2. Determine who may potentially be impacted by the project. What kind of equity is important?

Step 3. Evaluate potential equity impacts of the base case or “no build” alternative to compare 

against the equity impact of the road pricing project.

Step 4. Consider variety of perspectives and impacts.

Step 5. Measure effects (measuring equity impacts is addressed in Section 5).

1. Consider equity impacts early and throughout the project planning process: Agencies will benefit 

from identifying and measuring potential equity impacts early and throughout the process, which should 

lead to greater awareness and public acceptance and ultimately success of the road pricing project.

2. Determine users potentially impacted by the proposed project as well as regional equity priorities: 

Section 3.0 demonstrated that various categories of users may become impacted by a particular road 

pricing project. How the impacts are measured may vary with whether the proposed road pricing 

project impacts low income travelers, particular ethnic groups, particular residents, and/or travelers 

with less access to alternative travel modes. A socio-economic analysis of an agency’s and a project’s 

regional boundaries can help identify the various demographic, socioeconomic, industry, and other 

system user groups potentially affected by the proposed road pricing initiative. Evaluating and 

measuring the impacts of congestion pricing strategies on system users is discussed in more detail in 

Section 5.0. The magnitude of road pricing equity impacts will likely influence the choice of an 

appropriate remediation method (addressed in Section 6).

3. Evaluate equity impacts of the base case or “no build” alternative as well as the impact of the road 

pricing project: A roadway may have a negative impact on low-income travelers or particular residents 

with less access to alternative modes whether or not the roadway is priced. A limited access roadway 

(such as a highway) may limit local connectivity and access to shopping and services. There may be 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

15

externalities like noise and air pollution. For these reasons and others it is important to consider 

impacts of the no-build scenario as well as the impact of the road pricing project. Part of the baseline 

evaluation is that, at a minimum, an agency should “do no additional harm” with a road pricing project.

4. Consider a variety of perspectives and impacts: It is likely that all projects will have groups of people 

that benefit from the project and may have other groups that are negatively affected. Project 

evaluation should consider impacts on all impacted groups, not just those on lower income people or 

the residents of one particular neighborhood. It is better to consider multiple origins and destinations 

and multiple types of potential users.

5. Measure effects: Section 5.0 describes several qualitative and quantitative methodologies for 

measuring equity impacts. Until impacts are quantified and compared against the base, no-build case, it 

is difficult to fully understand how the project affects different groups.

4.2 An Example of Equity Analysis: Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice (EJ) is a type of equity in which only environmental impacts are considered. 

Because equity analysis encompasses more than just an environmental justice analysis, this guidebook 

recommends that agencies perform a larger equity analysis as they contemplate road pricing projects 

and implement road pricing. The equity analysis should be performed in addition to any environmental 

evaluation required by law. 

As described in Table 4-2, procedures for an EJ analysis illustrate how equity analysis can be completed. 

EJ Analysis is a type of equity analysis that focuses on environmental impacts. The guideline provided in 

Table 4-2 is based on actual analysis performed on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects 

where 200 draft Environmental Impact statements were reviewed to determine how many EJ analyses 

were performed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process. The project analyzed EJ

impacts related to project scope, affected project area, sources of exposure, potential for 

disproportionate effects, and project actions. The emphasis is not just on potential impacts of project 

alternatives on the affected community, but whether the community participated in project inputs and 

project meetings.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

16

Table 4-2: Procedure for Conducting an Environmental Justice Analysis6

SCOPING

• Clearly identify the composition of the region of influence and include appropriate criteria 

and data on the community.

• Analyze the identification of the region of influence using appropriate data on the affected 

community.

• Ensure that the affected community input during the scoping process includes access to 

information and meetings.

AFFECTED AREA AND COMPOSITION OF REGION OF INFLUENCE

• Define the criteria for recognizing the affected community and do criteria include minority

and low-income groups and Indian tribes.

• Analyze the affected community and include information on patterns of subsistence 

consumption of fish, vegetation, or wildlife.

• Ensure that the community provides input to the identification of the community of concern 

and has associated access to information and meetings.

IDENTIFY SOURCES OF EXPOSURE

• Identify the sources of exposure and likelihood of exposure to the affected community 

including potential environmental, human health, social, economic, and cultural impacts.

• Analyze potential direct, indirect, multiple, and cumulative impacts to the affected

community.

• Ensure that the affected community’s input is considered in the identification of the sources 

of exposure and likelihood of exposure. Also that they receive access to information and 

meetings.

POTENTIAL FOR DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECTS

• Identify the potential or adverse impacts on the community and whether they include 

potential environmental, human health, social, economic, and cultural impacts.

• Analyze the potential for adverse impacts and evaluate both whether it is disproportionate on 

the community and whether it includes potential environmental, human health, social, 

economic, and cultural impacts.

• Ensure that community provides input in the assessment of impacts and potential for 

disproportionate impacts on the community and has access to information and meetings.

DETERMINE ACTIONS

• Identify potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and monitoring to minimize the potential 

impact on the community.

• Analyze the potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and monitoring to minimize the 

potential impact to the community.

• Ensure community input to the identification of actions and ensure access to information and

meetings.

 6 Based on Booz Allen project, Analysis of Federal Agency Practices in Implementing E.O. 12898 and Accompanying 

Presidential Memo, March 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

17

FHWA and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) compiled detailed how-to guidance in April 

2009 for how to perform project-level and network-level environmental justice evaluations of toll roads. 

In this case, this is the equivalent to what can be done for a road pricing equity analysis. The 

document explains that an EJ area may be one where minorities or low-income populations in the traffic 

analysis zone (TAZ) exceed 50 percent. The general guidance is presented in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Project-Level Evaluation of Toll Roads7

All projects should document and discuss:

• Available non-tolled facilities (that can be used as substitutes for the tolled facility).

• Travel time differences between tolled and non-tolled routes.

• Transit vehicle toll policies.

• Toll rates or toll ranges.

• Methods of toll collection and how they may affect access and cost.

• Cost differences between acquiring toll tag with credit card or with cash.

• Location of toll booths, particularly in relation to identified EJ areas.

• EJ-related demographic data by traffic analysis zone (TAZ).

• Potential economic impact to individuals (for example, assuming 250 tolled round trips to work 

per year) and calculating toll proportion of income.

• Expected use of toll revenues.

• Potential remediation measures.

• Accommodations for Limited English Proficiency and disabled travelers to use the toll facility.

• Potential users of the facility using origin and destination studies identified by decreased travel 

time with use of the tolled facility.

• Assumptions and limitations of any travel demand models used in the study.

The FHWA/TxDOT source also describes evaluation of a network of toll roads which includes priced 

managed lanes.

8

 In addition to the information highlighted in Table 4-3, the source includes how the 

network will be tolled over time, an estimation of the cumulative economic impact of the tolls and 

expanding toll network, and a comparison of the tolled and non-tolled network benefits over time.

4.3 Incorporating Equity in the Transportation Planning Process – Illustrative Examples

To further illustrate how agencies should consider equity in evaluating their projects, each of the 

scenarios described in Section 2.0 is presented below along with a discussion around how equity should 

be incorporated in each scenario. 

 7 FHWA and TxDOT, “Joint Guidance for Project and Network Level Environmental Justice, Regional Network Land 

Use, and Air Quality Analyses for Toll Roads,” April 23, 2009. [Obtained by email between Anita Wilson and Patrick 

DeCorla-Souza, FHWA.] 8 Ibid.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

18

Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the 

first time

County X should consider equity impacts early and often in contemplating their potential pricing project. 

Transportation planners and decisionmakers should consider users impacted by the proposed tolling 

strategy. Since they are considering tolling an HOV lane adjacent to non-tolled lanes, then they already 

have identified a substitutable non-tolled lane. As such, county X’s equity analysis should focus 

primarily on the tolled lane potential users, specifically how the tolled travel time compares to the travel 

time on the non-tolled lanes and how toll fares are collected.

Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network

City Y should consider the network effects of their expanding system. And equity issues did not arise 

before when only one road was tolled, but now that several roads are likely to be tolled and the 

additional roads do not have existing HOV or HOT lanes, road pricing equity impacts could be 

substantial. The public often balks at charges for roadways that had previously been un-tolled. If the 

pricing expansion ensures that all priced lanes also accommodate HOV for free, then the equity impacts 

may be reduced. Transportation planners and decisionmakers in city Y should identify potential equity 

impacts early on rather than continue to ignore equity considerations. Without considering equity and 

user impacts early, there may be concerns about the city’s ability to successfully implement its toll 

expansion initiative.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

19

5.0 EVALUATING EQUITY AT THE PROJECT LEVEL

The equity measurement procedures and methods described in Section 5.0 can be used by agencies at 

all levels of government (State, regional, and local). Proactive agencies consider equity impacts at 

project initiation and become aware of potential and actual project impacts as part of project planning. 

In contrast, reactive agencies consider equity impacts after concerns are raised by stakeholders that the 

project has negative equity impacts and that equity should be addressed. Both proactive and reactive 

agencies should determine who is affected and measure potential impacts. Both will adopt the same 

evaluation methodologies to their projects. The illustrative scenarios presented at the end of Section 

5.0 provide examples of how an agency approaches equity evaluation proactively or reactively.

5.1 Procedure for Evaluating Equity at the Project Level

Agencies may find it helpful to evaluate the equity impacts of pricing projects on an ongoing basis during 

the design of the project. To evaluate equity impacts of any road pricing project, the first step is to 

define the specific kinds of equity (Section 3.0) that should be analyzed: the unique combinations of the 

four characteristics described previously. 

The following procedure is a starting point for agencies desiring to assess equity impacts:

• Determine the stakeholder groups that could potentially be affected by a given project.

• Catalog the known concerns of the major stakeholder groups that will be affected, and make 

best guesses as to which kinds of equity will matter to them. Choose only the top few kinds for 

each stakeholder group.

• Internally, use modeling to determine impacts on the types of equity chosen for analysis. 

Modeling techniques may include the following:

o Transportation modeling

o Financial modeling

o Environmental modeling.

• Design mitigation strategies (such as those described in Section 6) to mitigate significant equity 

impacts.

• Hold stakeholder outreach meetings to explain the project. Explain how the project creates a 

net social benefit, and explain the mitigation strategies to those who would perceive harm. 

After the stakeholders understand the system, ask for their remaining concerns about the 

project. Stakeholders should be engaged early in the process, but not before the first efforts at 

alleviating equity concerns are incorporated into the project design.

• Based on stakeholder concerns from the meeting, consider whether further mitigation 

strategies are warranted.

• Continue to work with stakeholder groups throughout project implementation to ensure that no 

new equity concerns arise.

5.2 Evaluating the Impacts of Road Pricing Projects – Qualitative and Quantitative

Techniques

There seems to be little consensus among experts on what methodologies to use to measure the cost 

and benefits of road pricing initiatives. Appropriate evaluation methodologies can vary based upon the

specific equity measure desired, data availability, and agency staff expertise in conducting equity 

analyses for road pricing projects. This guidebook provides instructions to help standardize processes 

for all State and local agencies to use in evaluating equity.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

20

Evaluation methodologies can be categorized as qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative evaluation 

methods can be used as an initial step towards quantitative evaluation, but quantitative measures 

should be used to measure actual impacts. The following text provides brief summaries of several 

potential evaluation methods.

Identification of Beneficiaries and Those Potentially Negatively Impacted – Qualitative Evaluation

Table 5-1 provides example road pricing beneficiaries and those potentially negatively impacted. As 

shown, an initial catalog of who directly benefits or dis-benefits (i.e., receives harm) from a road pricing 

project helps to illustrate project impacts. Once these are identified, a quantitative analysis of the size 

of the benefits and dis-benefits can be made. A general agency goal, beyond “do no additional harm” is 

that the aggregated benefits of a project outweigh the aggregated dis-benefits. 

Table 5-1: Example Road Pricing Beneficiaries and Those Potentially Negatively Impacted

Direct Beneficiaries Potentially Negatively Impacted 

• Wealthier motorists who value their travel 

time savings more than their toll costs

• Bus and rideshare travelers who enjoy 

improved service due to reduced 

congestion and economies of scale

• Recipients of toll revenues

• Local and regional communities who enjoy 

a better quality of life, less noise pollution, 

and emissions

• Lower income motorists who pay the toll 

because they have no travel alternative, 

but don't value their time savings more 

than the toll costs

• Motorists who shift to other routes to 

avoid a toll

• Road users on un-tolled roads who 

experience increased congestion

• Motorists who forego trips due to tolls

• Motorists who shift to transit and 

rideshare modes due to tolls (although 

service improvements due to economies 

of scale may make some of these net 

beneficiaries)

Note: Contents adapted from original.

Source: Gomez-Ibanez, Jose, “The Political Economy of Highway Tolls and Congestion Pricing,” Journal of Transport Economics 

and Policy, Vol. 46, No. 3, July 1992, pp. 343-360. Repeated in Litman, Todd, “Using Road Pricing Revenue: Economic Efficiency

and Equity Considerations,” May 2011. Found at http://www.vtpi.org/revenue.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2012

Before and After Road Pricing Equity Impacts

A simpler way to measure equity impacts is to measure equity impacts before a road pricing scheme is 

implemented and then to measure the impacts after a scheme is implemented. As with all evaluation, 

there are advantages to measuring the actual project implementation and impacts, but there may be 

reasons why we want to predict the impact of projects that are only in the planning stages. For the 

scientifically rigorous before-and-after and cross-sectional studies to measure the equity implications of 

evolving financing mechanisms in order to provide a robust basis for future decisionmaking, the report 

states that the studies should:
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

21

• Track short- and long-term behavioral shifts in response to the evolving mechanisms

• Conduct verifiable analyses to ensure the validity and transferability of results

• Avoid preconceived notions and oversimplification.9

Direct and Indirect Road Pricing Cost and Benefit Calculations

Weinstein and Sciara suggest considering both direct and indirect cost and benefit calculations in 

evaluating the equity of road pricing projects.

10 They suggest that tolls are regressive but that there 

are many socially acceptable government fees like garbage collection fees, community college tuition, 

and fees to use public swimming pools. They suggest considering the evidence from existing HOT lanes 

that some low-income people do use the lanes indicating that they feel the benefits are greater than the 

cost of the toll. Many priced managed lane users are only occasional users—for certain occasions the 

toll is a price that most people can afford. They suggest the following indirect benefits—that the 

reallocation of revenues to enhance transit or match carpools or provide other transportation services 

may provide all corridor users including lower income travelers with enhanced and faster transportation 

options. Another benefit suggested earlier in the guidebook is that some HOT lanes have reduced the 

travel times on the general purpose lanes, providing a benefit to all corridor users. Weinstein and Sciara 

finally suggest that the benefit and cost calculations also need to consider indirect costs like transponder 

deposits and acquisition. 

GIS Analysis of Who is Affected by a Road Pricing Project

The FHWA/TxDOT paper referred to in Section 4.0 suggests using Geographical Information Systems

(GIS) to determine which residential areas may benefit from the faster travel times of a road pricing 

project.11 As described earlier, the travel times from each regional neighborhood to typical destinations 

using the priced and substitutable unpriced roadways should be calculated to determine the potential 

benefits and impacts of the priced facility. GIS may also help identify which residential areas are 

adjacent to a road pricing project and which areas may have increased noise from the faster traveling 

vehicles on a priced roadway. These noise-related dis-benefits may be offset by the air quality 

reductions resulting from faster moving vehicles.

Econometric Analysis with Survey Data

One way to quantitatively assess the impacts of a road pricing project is to obtain both demographic and 

travel behavior data of potential and actual project users. An econometric analysis can then be 

performed to determine which variables contribute to the choice of using a priced lane. Econometric 

analyses may also be used to determine the frequency of using a priced option. Demographics include 

 9

Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011. 10 Weinstein, A., and G. C. Sciara, Assessing the Equity Implications of HOT Lanes: A Report Prepared for the Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority (San Jose State University and University of California Berkeley, November 

2004). http://www.vta.org/projects/hot_lanes/hot_equity.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011. 11 FHWA and TxDOT, “Joint Guidance for Project and Network Level Environmental Justice, Regional Network Land 

Use, and Air Quality Analyses for Toll Roads,” April 23, 2009. [Obtained by email between Anita Wilson and 

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, FHWA.]
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

22

income, gender, vehicle ownership rates, and household size. Travel behavior includes origin and 

destination at a minimum, but may also include attitudes towards pricing and how travel times, travel 

time reliability, number of signals, and type of roadway impact route choice decisions. 

A number of papers in the literature perform econometric analyses related to road pricing, but the ones 

that specifically address equity are limited. A recent project at the University of Washington used nonproject-specific regional data for their analysis including the 2007 American Community Survey, the 

Washington Population Survey for 2004 and 2006, and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s 2006 

Household Activities Survey. The paper found that the ACS provided the best demographic data but 

they needed to integrate the ACS data with the Household Activity survey data for travel routes of poor 

and non-poor households.12 The researchers used the data to determine the percentage of income used 

in paying tolls for two different scenarios: a network of tolled roadways and one priced bridge (SR 520 

which initiated tolls in December 2011).

Burris and Hannay performed the more-common analysis of acquiring demographic and travel behavior 

data from project-specific survey data; in this case, a survey of Houston QuickRide enrollees.

13 The

analyses determined that priced roadway usage did not vary significantly by income, occupation, age, or 

household size. Similarly, frequency of usage did not vary significantly; however, QuickRide enrollees 

were found to have significantly higher incomes and were significantly younger than drivers on the 

adjacent general purpose lanes. Burris and Hannay suggest that the ability or interest of low-income 

individuals to enroll in the program is an equity concern but that as long as the occupants of the 

QuickRide program valued their time at more than $3 an hour, the program had a net benefit.

Road Pricing Versus Alternative Non-Tolled Projects and Remediation Strategies

In addition to the proposed road pricing project, alternative projects should be identified. An 

understanding of the base conditions without the road pricing project is also needed. After this step, 

the agency can start measuring the additional benefits or dis-benefits of the road pricing project 

compared to not implementing the road pricing project. It may be, for example, that certain geographic 

areas are adversely affected by a roadway whether or not the roadway is tolled.

As the groups that are affected are identified, remediation strategies should be considered for 

addressing potential equity impacts. Several of these remediation strategies including toll design, toll 

discounts, and revenue redistribution are presented in Section 6.0. 

5.3 Evaluating Equity at the Project Level – Illustrative Examples

For each of the two scenarios described in Section 2.0, an illustrative example of how to evaluate the 

equity impact of a pricing project is offered below. 

 12 Plotnick, R., J. Romich, and J. Thacker. The Impacts of Tolling on Low-Income Persons in the Puget Sound Region. 

University of Washington, April 2009. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/721.1.pdf. Accessed 

Sept. 1, 2011.

13 Burris, M., and R. Hannay. “Equity Analysis of the Houston Quickride Project.” Transportation Research Board 

Annual Meeting, March 2003. 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

23

Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the 

first time 

Potential Evaluation Method • Direct and Indirect Cost and Benefit Calculation

Description

The tolling agency in county X should attempt to calculate direct and indirect costs and benefits of 

potential users and non-users in the priced managed lane corridor. Direct costs include the expected 

tolls to be paid. Indirect costs include transponder acquisition and deposit, obtaining information about 

travel time differences between the priced and general purpose lanes. Direct benefits include travel 

time savings for both the priced managed lane users and general purpose lane users. Indirect benefits 

include not having to travel in a carpool to use the faster lane and improved air quality due to the higher 

speed of the general purpose lanes.

Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network

Potential Evaluation Method • Econometric Analysis with Project-Specific Survey 

Description

With the experience of priced managed lanes in the region, the tolling agency in city Y can survey users 

(both priced managed lane users and general purpose lane users) of the corridor and the proposed toll 

corridors. The survey can result in demographic data including income, household size, occupation, age 

and gender and travel behavior data of typical origin, typical destination, priced managed lane HOT lane 

usage frequency, commuting frequency, and attitudes about priced managed lanes and pricing. With 

this data, the agency can determine what factors impact priced managed lane usage frequency and 

assess how the expanded tolled roadways may be utilized.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

24

6.0 STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF CONGESTION PRICING

Section 6.0 offers transportation planners and decisionmakers procedures and guidelines to help 

address and mitigate the equity impacts of road pricing strategies.

6.1 Congestion Pricing Remediation Strategies in the Literature

Some earlier papers suggest how revenues gained from road pricing projects should be redistributed to 

make road pricing more politically viable. Goodwin suggests a “Rule of Three” and distributing revenues 

to tax relief, new roads, and public transportation.14 Small provides seven recommendations for how 

revenue should be utilized.15 But neither of these emphasize that this revenue distribution is to 

remediate adverse equity impacts; the larger emphasis is road pricing viability. In contrast to these and 

similar, earlier papers, the emphasis of Section 6.0 is remediation in response to equity impacts.

TRB Special Report 30316 cautions that there may be limited funding for remediation measures, 

especially if the road pricing revenues go to further road construction or debt service. Another report 

suggests that remediation measures should be assessed by whether they treat everyone equally, 

whether people bear the costs that they impose, whether they are progressive with respect to income, 

whether they benefit the transportation disadvantaged, and whether they improve basic access.17 Also, 

related to Section 7.0 on communications, stakeholders should be involved early in the process to help 

identify and target remedies.18

This section lists many different measures that can be used to remediate negative equity impacts of 

road pricing projects. There are a number of measures that agencies may employ to mitigate equity 

effects. These include:

• Use of revenues—judicious use of revenues generated by a pricing project is the single most 

important way of mitigating equity effects. The European Union’s Coordination of Urban Road 

User Charging Organizational Issues (CURACAO’s) road pricing fact sheet reads: “Evidence 

suggests that the judicious use of hypothecated revenues is likely to achieve a greater 

improvement in equity than simply reducing the overall charge level.” In order to ensure such 

judicious use, the agency should, foremost, hypothecate or ring-fence revenues from the project 

for use on transportation. Such uses may include public transportation, but also highway 

operations and improvements. If the pricing program replaces other taxation sources, the 

 14Goodwin, P. “The Rule of Three: A Possible Solution to the Political Problem of Competing Objectives for Road 

Pricing.” Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1989, pp. 495–97.

15 Small, K., Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing. Transportation, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1992, pp. 359-381.

16 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

17 Litman T., Evaluating Transportation Equity, World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 

50–65. Updated version (May 2011) available at http://www.islandnet.com/~litman/equity.pdf. Accessed 

Sept. 1, 2011.

18 Bonsall, P., and C. Kelly. Road User Charging and Social Exclusion: The Impact of Congestion Charges on At-Risk 

Groups, Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2005, pp. 406–18.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

25

pricing program may increase equity by many measures: Taylor and Schweitzer suggest that 

using road pricing to finance highway construction, maintenance and operations and thus 

reducing sales tax, increases vertical equity.

19

• Vary pricing by time of day, type and location of road, vehicle type, etc. – use of pricing that 

varies by location, road type, time of day, vehicle type, and other characteristics may mitigate 

some equity impacts of pricing projects.

• Discounts/Exemptions—discounts and exemptions—in essence, varying pricing by person 

type—are a way of mitigating some demographic equity effects. However, such discounts and 

exemptions often lead to a greater need for enforcement and high administrative costs, and so 

should be avoided unless no other means of equity mitigation exists.

• Provide payment means for the unbanked—in order to avoid creating a system where the 

unbanked are unable to easily participate in a pricing project, the agency should provide a 

means for them to pay by cash, such as top up terminals in gas stations or grocery stores.

Remediation strategies generally fall under one of three categories listed below:

• Revising existing finance pricing policies;

• Offering exemptions, discounts, subsidies, or rebates to parties adversely affected by the policy; 

or 

• Offering or improving alternative transportation services. 20

Table 6-1 provides a listing of potential equity impact remediation strategies. Please note that each of 

the remediation measures or strategies listed in Table 6-1 is described in further detail Appendix B along 

with example deployment sites, benefactors, why the strategy is used, additional details, and links to 

more information. Table 6-2 describes some of the state and local financial as well as technology

policies and strategies that might offset the benefits of equity impact mitigation measures. 

At the end of section 6.0, we offer illustrative examples of potential remediation measures for each of 

the scenarios identified in Section 2.0.

 19 Schweitzer, L. and B. D. Taylor. Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes. 

Transportation, 35(6). 2008, pp. 797-812.

20 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

26

Table 6-1: Remediation Measures to Offset Equity Impacts, and Policy Choices that Complicate 

Remediation Measures

Method Brief Description Deployment site Examples

Revising existing finance policies

Credit-based congestion 

pricing21

Credit-based system to 

redistribute revenue to 

individual drivers

FAST miles22

Price Design limitations Upper limits on road pricing, 

limits on the number of priced 

crossings per period for cordon 

charges, allowances for 

unlimited use of priced facilities 

in certain periods (off-peak 

hours, holidays, weekends, 

etc.) 23

Widely implemented

Increased access to transponders Allow motorists to apply for and 

receive transponders at public 

assistance offices and other sites 

commonly used by low-income 

populations. This may include 

customer service centers

Auto Expreso System in Puerto 

Rico

TxTag in Texas24

SR 520 bridge customer service 

centers in Washington

Alternative payment options Offer cash or pay-as-you-go 

options for motorists who do not 

have debit/credit cards

Widely implemented (turnpike 

ticket option, cash for fare card, 

etc.) 

Compensating nonusers Offering compensation (i.e., toll 

credits) to drivers choosing to 

use general-purpose lanes

(Proposed) FAIR lanes25

Geographic system design Purposefully locating cordon 

boundaries, exits, etc., in order 

to maximize equity

London and Stockholm cordon 

boundaries

 21 Kockelman, K. M., and S. Kalmanje, Credit-Based Congestion Pricing: A Policy Proposal and the Public’s Response, 

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 7–9, August–November 2005.

22 DeCorla-Souza, P., Improving Metropolitan Transportation Efficiency with Fast Miles, Journal of Public

Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 45–70.

23 ICF International, Environmental Justice in Transportation: Emerging Trends and Best Practices. FHWA, 2011. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/lib/guidebook/index.cfm .Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

24 FHWA, Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing: A Primer (FHWA Office of Transportation 

Management, 2009).

25 DeCorla-Souza, P., Fair Highway Networks: A New Approach to Eliminate Congestion on Metropolitan Freeways, 

Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2005, pp. 196–205.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

27

Method Brief Description Deployment site Examples

Park and ride facilities Parking adjacent to project or 

express bus stops to increase 

carpooling and transit use

I-95 Express Lanes in Broward 

County, FL

I-15 Express Lanes in San Diego, 

CA

Offering exemptions, discounts, subsidies, or rebates to parties adversely affected by the policy

Discounts/exemptions Discounts reduce the congestion 

charge paid; exemptions exclude 

certain persons or vehicles from 

payment. May have cost and 

enforcement consequences

Most priced managed lane 

facilities exempt transit and 

emergency vehicles

L.A. Metro – Toll Credit Program 

for low income users including 

discount and monthly fee waiver

Subsidies Use a portion of revenue to 

subsidize toll costs/costs of lowincome commuters

Central Texas toll roads (Texas 

130, Loop 1, Texas 45N),26

Germany, and France allow 

taxpayers to deduct commuting 

expenses from their income tax 

liability27

Offering or improving alternative transportation services

Revenue redistribution Redistribute revenues through 

public spending on specific 

transportation-related 

improvements (widely 

implemented strategy on many 

priced managed lanes)

I-15 in San Diego (funds to 

support express bus service)28

Norwegian toll rings (funds to 

roadway/transit improvement)29

Increased access to alternative 

transit

Transit, vanpools, paratransit, or 

other options as alternatives in 

locations not served by transit

Widely implemented

 26 Wear, B., Central Texas toll roads need more state subsidies than expected, The Statesman (July 18, 2011). 

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/central-texas-toll-roads-need-more-state-subsidies1618544.html. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011

27 Bork, R., and M. Wrede, Political economy of commuting subsidies, Journal of Urban Economics No. 57, 2005, 

pp. 478–99. 28 Toups, D. T., San Diego Association of Governments, “FasTrak Study—Follow-Up Questions,” e-mail to Liisa 

Ecola, December 18, 2008.

29 Leromonachou, P., S. Potter, and J. P. Warren, “Norway’s Urban Toll Rings: Evolving Towards Congestion 

Charging?” Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 5, September 2006, pp. 367–78.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

28

The selection of remediation measures depends primarily on project objectives and conditions. A 

project emphasizing congestion reduction may adopt different remediation measures from a project 

with a revenue maximization emphasis. Similarly, a project with significant Federal funding may make 

choices differently than a locally funded project. The Los Angeles Metro project has an explicit Toll 

Credit Program for low income users to receive a credit at program sign-up and a waiver of monthly 

account fees. The Stockholm congestion charge has succeeded because special accommodations and 

mitigating measures were made for certain groups who perceived inequities, including the residents of a 

specific area (Lidingo Island). 

Many recently deployed projects include the enhancement of transit options that take advantage of the 

faster facility. Use of toll revenues to support improved transit service has been one of the most 

successful strategies at gaining support from lower income groups as it provides mobility options that 

best serve these communities. However, Manchester, U.K., did not succeed in implementation of its 

congestion pricing project in part because automobile drivers perceived that a disproportionate amount 

of the anticipated revenues would be going to support riders of other modes. 

More details are provided in Section 6.3 and in Appendix B.

6.2 Post-Implementation Road Pricing Remediation Strategies — Equity Audit Tool

Ecola and Light suggest the use of an “equity audit tool” after implementing a road pricing project. They 

suggest continuously monitoring the road pricing project and its remediation measures and determining 

whether the measures successfully address equity differences. If equity concerns are not well enough 

addressed, then either the road pricing project or the remediation can be modified to better address 

equity.30

6.3 Road Pricing Remediation Strategies – Illustrative Examples 

In the following, the research team presents a potential remediation approach for each of the three 

road pricing scenarios identified. It is important to note that examples below are for illustrative 

purposes only; additional remediation methods likely apply to each of these scenarios.

Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the 

first time

Issue • Lack of Internet Access/Stable Address to 

Receive Mail

Potential Remediation Method • Increased access to transponders

Description

County X has an underutilized HOV lane. Converting to a HOT lane gives all drivers the opportunity to 

take advantage of the fourth lane, but often pricing a lane that was previously untolled is met with 

resistance. One way to encourage use of the newly converted HOT/Express lane is to make the 

 30 Ecola L. and Light T., Equity and Congestion Pricing A Review of the Evidence (RAND 2009).

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html. Accessed January 27, 2012.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

29

technology as accessible and visible as possible. Making transponders convenient by selling them at 

local gas stations, retailers, etc. and providing cash-based purchase options to accommodate the 

unbanked will encourage drivers to acquire one and then utilize the new HOT/Express lane. This 

addresses payment medium equity and that some users are not able to utilize accounts that require 

credit cards or internet access.

Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network

Issue • Pricing Variations (time of day; miles 

traveled, etc...)

Potential Remediation Method • Discounts/exemptions

Description

The expansion of the tolled roadway network near city Y may coincide with a more-complicated tolling 

structure. Instead of charging just one toll to use the HOT/Express lane (regardless of traffic levels), the 

toll may vary by time of day and by miles traveled. It may also be possible for certain groups of users to 

apply for transponders that facilitate a discount. A simpler system follows the Los Angeles Metro 

example and provides a credit at account sign up and monthly fee waiver to low-income households.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

30

7.0 THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATIONS IN CONGESTION PRICING INITIATIVES

Public perception and understanding of equity considerations are critical components for many road 

pricing initiatives. Much of the literature and our discussions with stakeholders relate to the importance 

of communications with respect to potential equity impacts on any of these projects. Communications 

should happen early and often in the project planning process and throughout the process. The 

literature stresses the importance of perception, acknowledging that road pricing is often perceived as 

unfair (e.g., the use of the “Lexus Lanes” moniker), and that there are differences in popular and expert 

perspectives.31

Communications may take on several forms including press releases, public meetings, glossy brochures, 

web sites, and speaking points for customer service representatives and agency staff. Agencies will

likely need to use a variety of these methods to reach a large number of potential roadway users and 

potentially negatively impacted people. With appropriate communications, some of the questions and 

concerns surrounding the road pricing project may be addressed. With positive communications, users 

and local groups may be convinced of the roadway’s benefits and less concerned with possible 

dis-benefits.

Section 7.0, presents a summary of what to communicate (Table 7-1) and also a summary of 

communications methods (Table 7-2). It also revisits the two illustrative scenarios from Section 2.0 and 

provides examples of what they should communicate about their projects and examples of how they 

should communicate it. For each particular project, agencies should review the charts below. 

Agencies should carefully consider each of the proposed items in Table 7-1 and whether these apply to 

their projects and should be incorporated into their communications messages and strategies. Agencies 

should then review Table 7-2 and determine which of the communications methods can be adopted into 

their own project communications plans. 

 31 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

31

Table 7-1: Selecting Equity-Related Messages to Communicate

What to Communicate

Description Example

Determining where and how revenues are used and how revenues will 

benefit roadway users

Demonstrating benefits through experimental programs and pilot 

strategiesa

Stockholm cordon pricing 

systemb

Market research of catchment areas around road pricing projects to 

characterize users/assess equity. Additional equity evaluation results preand post-project implementation 

Information about tolling. For example, provide information to social 

agencies about tolls and options for avoiding tolls 

Puget Sound,

c San 

Francisco, SR 520 

(Washington State)

Discuss and address “Lexus Lane” Concerns Minneapolisd

Additional travel choice for drivers and educating users on the new transit 

options that will be available along the corridor

Los Angeles MTAe

Special groups’ (ex. Truckers’) concerns over negative effects of proposed 

pricing changes

New Yorkf

a Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms, 

Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed 

Sept. 1, 2011.

b

Taylor, B.D. How Fair Is Road Pricing? Evaluating Equity in Transportation Pricing and Finance. UCLA Institute of Transportation 

Studies, September 2010. http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Pricing%20EquityFIN.pdf. Accessed Jan. 

20, 2012.

c

Eight-Month Performance Summary of SR 167 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Pilot Project (Washington State Department of 

Transportation, January 2008).

d

Munnich, Lee W., Jr., and Kenneth R. Buckeye, I-394 MnPASS High-Occupancy Toll Lanes, Planning and Operational Issues and 

Outcomes, (Lessons Learned in Year 1). Transportation Research Record No. 1996: Journal of the Transportation Research 

Board, 2007.

e

Los Angeles Region Express Lanes Project: AB 1467 Application (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 

partnership with the California Department of Transportation, March 2008). f

Report to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission & Recommended Implementation Plan (New York City Traffic 

Congestion Mitigation Commission, January 2008). The new pricing scheme lifted peak hour prices dramatically but offered a 

substantial overnight discount on weekdays. While overnight truck traffic rose 2 percent, most truckers and trucking groups 

felt they had been unfairly targeted and that the special overnight discount was not helpful

Table 7-2: What Equity-Related Messages to Communicate

Methods of Communication

Description Example

Emphasize communications 

throughout the entire project from 

planning to implementation. 

Develop and use communications 

plans describing how project 

information and impacts will be 

disseminated

• Numerous meetings and focus groups (Minneapolis)

a

Foster community dialog and make 

communications two-sided. If 

• Examples include an advisory task force, HOT lane 

workshop for Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

32

Methods of Communication

Description Example

changes can be made to a project 

based on citizen input then we want 

to disseminate information about a 

project and have live blogs and 

contact centers in order to inform 

the public and gather input

board members, and a press conference and public 

meetings early in the project planning. They suggest the 

need to foster community dialogueb

• Numerous policy advisory committees, community 

organizations, neighborhood groups, and business 

associations (San Francisco)c

• Value Pricing Outreach Program including focus groups, 

discussions with community leaders, and board member 

education to promote the system. (Transportation Corridor 

Agencies, Southern California)d 

Provide limited English proficiency 

(L.E.P.) plans and outreach in 

multiple languages as needed

• Washington State/SR 520

Use a variety of public outreach and 

educational toolse 

• Use surveys/focus groups/open houses to help identify 

designs most acceptable to public, refine strategies, 

and discuss concerns

• Advertise in newspapers, transit stations, online, and 

through neighborhood/business groups 

• Social media strategies are emerging (e.g., Twitter, 

Facebook, YouTube)

• Internet, citizen champions, and a mobility coordinator 

role. (Dallas)f

Deploy a phased approach (smallscale [pilot] implementation first) to 

assess and then react to how users 

respond 

• SFpark, Stockholm

Contact majority with little to 

moderate outreach; 

Contact a few with extensive 

outreach supporting 

long/incremental planning process 

Customer service centers • SR 520 (Washington State)

A commercial video prepared to 

promote use of the facility

• SR 91 (Southern California),

g LA Metro Express Lanesh

a Munnich, Lee W., Jr., and Kenneth R. Buckeye, I-394 MnPASS High-Occupancy Toll Lanes, Planning and Operational Issues and 

Outcomes, (Lessons Learned in Year 1). Transportation Research Record No. 1996: Journal of the Transportation Research 

Board, 2007.

b

 Weinstein, A., and G. C. Sciara, Assessing the Equity Implications of HOT Lanes: A Report Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority (San Jose State University and University of California Berkeley, November 2004). 

http://www.vta.org/projects/hot_lanes/hot_equity.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011. c

 San Francisco Mobility, Access and Pricing Study: Final Report (San Francisco County Transportation Authority, December 

2010).
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

33

Methods of Communication

Description Example d

 Sullivan E., Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR-91 Value-Priced Lanes: Final Report (Cal Poly State 

University-San Luis Obispo, December 2000). See also Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity 

of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

e

 Private communication with MacGregor M., Texas Department of Transportation, CDA/Tollway Director, 2009. f

 Sullivan E., Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR-91 Value-Priced Lanes: Final Report (Cal Poly State 

University-San Luis Obispo, December 2000). g

 See: http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/ . Accessed January 27, 2012. An updated video is to be made available in 

Spring 2012.

7.1 Congestion Pricing Communication Strategies – What and How, Illustrative Examples

For each of the road pricing scenarios described in Section 2.0, we provide examples of what to 

communicate and how to communicate it to stakeholders as well as interested and concerned parties. 

Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies for the first 

time

What to 

communicate

• Information about tolling

• Determining where and how revenues are used and how revenues will 

benefit roadway users

• Discuss and address potential equity concerns

How to 

communicate

• Emphasize communications throughout the entire project from planning to 

implementation 

• Foster community dialog and make communications two-sided. If changes 

can be made to a project based on citizen input then we want to disseminate 

information about a project and have live blogs and contact centers in order 

to inform the public and gather input

Description

For regions new to road pricing, much of what they need is information. Why is a pricing strategy being 

recommended? How much will they be tolled and when and how? If tolling will be facilitated with 

transponders, then how do they get a transponder? In addition to the logistics, the public should be 

told where and how revenues will be used and how the revenues will benefit roadway users. For 

regions where tolled lanes are referred to as “Lexus lanes,” it is best to address that directly and explain 

that other road pricing projects are utilized by a mix of vehicles and drivers from all income classes. As 

with all road pricing projects, emphasizing communications to the public throughout the project 

including during initiation, planning, and implementation is vital. A variety of dissemination methods 

can be used including newspaper ads, press releases, websites, and community meetings. Ideally, 

community meetings and websites can be utilized to foster two-way communication. Project changes 

such as when the toll is charged or when the project opens may be initiated by community dialog.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

34

Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along their network

What to 

communicate

• Market research of catchment areas around road pricing projects to 

characterize users/assess equity 

• An additional travel choice for drivers and educating users on the new 

transit options that will be available along the corridor

How to communicate • Schedule information sessions to educate the public and address 

concerns

• Inform the public about upcoming events and information related to 

the project through social media sites

Description

Based upon city Y’s experience with pricing, they will be able to communicate results of evaluations that 

show how users adjacent to priced roadways utilize the priced roadways. The agency will be able to 

communicate how groups are positively or negatively impacted by the priced roadway and they can 

communicate expected impacts of the new tolled roadways. Mature and new Express lane systems can 

also explain that the priced roadway provides an additional travel choice for drivers. In their 

communications, they can explain remediation measures like the addition of transit in the corridor. The 

system can also reach out to specific groups such as truckers and address their concerns explicitly. 

Similar to how these things can be communicated in county X, city Y can schedule information sessions 

to educate the public and address concerns. They can also update any project websites and provide 

information through social media sites including Twitter and Facebook.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

35

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

In order to assist transportation agencies to better assess and mitigate equity impacts of road pricing 

projects on local communities, commuters, and system users, the FHWA developed this guidebook. This 

guidebook will help transportation agencies, decision-makers, and other interested parties, including the

public, to better understand, address, and mitigate equity impacts of road pricing projects on local 

communities, commuters, and system users. The guidebook:

• Offers comprehensive procedures and guidance to State, regional, and local agencies, as well as 

decisionmakers and concerned citizens to follow when considering road pricing projects to 

ensure that equity issues are appropriately and adequately communicated, evaluated, and 

addressed to the best extent possible.

• Focuses primarily on time-of-day variable pricing applied to cordon and area-wide pricing, 

facility pricing (including high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, express toll lanes, and traditional toll 

roads), and parking pricing. Was built upon: 

o A comprehensive literature review of existing road/congestion pricing equity research 

and applications;

o A series of interviews with government staff, academics, private sector representatives, 

and other subject matter experts knowledgeable about road pricing equity; and

o A workshop held in Washington D.C. in October 2011 to review and finalize the 

guidebook. The workshop was attended by road/congestion pricing and equity experts 

including government officials, researchers and academics, as well as private sector 

representatives. 

• Includes two road pricing scenarios/case studies identified by FHWA. Two potential scenarios 

were introduced and used throughout the guidebook to illustrate potential applications of 

guidebook topics. These included:

o Scenario 1: Agencies considering implementing roadway congestion pricing strategies 

for the first time.

o Scenario 2: Agencies considering road pricing expansion along its network.

It is unlikely that any agency will be able to identify, evaluate, and remediate all potential equity issues 

resulting from new or ongoing road-pricing strategies and initiatives. There will likely be a degree of 

inequity in any project whether or not it involves road pricing. The point is to limit equity impacts or to 

work towards a new and more equitable system. Pricing projects may have positive impacts beyond 

users. The Miami 95 Express Lanes project reports improved travel times on the general purpose lanes 

adjacent to the HOT lanes suggesting that the project has improved travel for all in the corridor. By 

following this guidebook, agencies should be able to identify potential equity impacts, evaluate them, 

and identify remediation and communications methods that may address any identified equity impacts. 

8.1 Recommendations

As a starting point, agencies may wish to keep the following guidelines in mind as they consider 

incorporating road pricing as an option into their planning processes:

• An analyst trained in equity can review the equity implications of all pricing concepts before 

they are discussed publicly, so that all agency officials are conversant with the major equity 

concepts in play. 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

36

• It may be helpful for agencies to first address the existing system and measure the equity of the 

existing system that the new policy or system will replace. No system is perfect in terms of 

equity. Incrementally, the new system should be more equitable than the existing system or 

policy it is replacing. Therefore, it is important to understand the pluses and minuses of the 

existing system to adequately address the pros and cons of the new system against the existing 

system in terms of horizontal and vertical equity. 

• Mitigation measures will involve a package of transportation improvements almost inevitably 

including public transportation improvements. These packages should be developed at least at a 

high level before the discussion becomes public.

• Agencies may begin equity analysis by determining who is affected by the road pricing project. 

The agency may wish to provide targeted stakeholder outreach, specifically outreach to 

stakeholders who are likely to perceive greater equity harms. Agencies should avoid asking the 

question “What do you think of the new road pricing project?” in isolation, as users will simply 

perceive it as an additional fee that they will have to pay. Instead, agencies may ask users to 

envision two futures—one with the road pricing project, and one without it, so that the users 

can understand the benefits and costs of each approach.

• Agencies can consider equity vs. efficiency tradeoffs present in the project. Broadly speaking the 

more completely equitable a project is, the less efficient (i.e., greater percentage of revenues 

needed to cover operating costs) it is.

• Agencies should focus on the net equity outcome. Often in analyzing a project, stakeholders, 

pubic officials, media, and members of the public tend to focus primarily on equity concerns 

that arise due to the project, and fail to recognize the equity problems that the project solves. 

The agency can demonstrate that net equity outcome is the key measure of effectiveness for 

the project.

8.2 Next Steps

More Research and Analysis is Needed

The literature review for this guidebook identified gaps related to equity and road pricing. The RAND 

study listed topics on equity impacts of congestion pricing. This literature review revealed a significant 

research gap in these topics. These topics include environmental justice impacts, long-term land use 

impacts of congestion pricing, equity implications of building new roads with congestion pricing 

revenue, and how adding congestion pricing to existing transportation finance mechanisms would 

change the equity implications.32

The August 2011 Special Report from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) suggests that 

comprehensive before-and-after studies are needed, as well as a better understanding of travel 

behavior and its consequences. It also recommends a knowledge base for decision support and a TRB 

Handbook for equity analyses of transportation finance policies.33 It is hoped that the Guidebook 

developed in this project will come close to what TRB contemplates as an American Association of State 

 32 Ecola L., and T. Light, Equity and Congestion Pricing A Review of the Evidence (RAND 2009). 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html. Accessed Jan 27, 2012. 33 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

37

Highway and Transportation Officials-funded National Cooperative Highway Research Program project. 

FHWA may be able to use resources like www.transportationresearch.gov and the learning portal under 

development by the Intelligent Transportation Systems Professional Capacity Building program as the 

decision-support knowledge base that the TRB Committee envisioned. 
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

38

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

The terms in the glossary have been divided into the following subsections: key equity terms, types of 

equity, mitigation terms, key policy definitions, and other useful terms.

Key Equity Terms

Benefit principle: The idea that it is equitable for one group to pay higher taxes if its members receive 

greater benefits.34

Benefits received: People who use a facility the most pay the most.35

Classifications: Ways that equity can be categorized in terms of what factors are taken into 

consideration

Communications: Working with the public in order to produce a favorable perspective and 

understanding of a road pricing project.

Efficiency: An allocation of resources is efficient if there is no other feasible allocation of resources that 

can make more people better off without making anyone worse off. In terms of transportation analyses, 

efficiency is measured in terms of a policy’s ability to maximize overall total social welfare, regardless of 

whether some individuals are made worse off.

Equality: Distributing costs and benefits in a manner that benefits all people to the same extent. This 

can refer to equality of opportunity, whereby all people have the same chances, or equality of outcome, 

whereby all people end up with the same opportunities.36

Equitable: Meeting a normative standard of fairness.

Equity: A measure of “fairness” in terms of the distribution of costs and benefits among members of 

society. Such benefits and costs—whether monetary or nonmonetary—can be distributed in ways that 

people may see as reasonable or unreasonable.

Equity categories: The social groupings that are under observation.

Equity impacts: Consequences of transportation policy that may affect equity.

 34 Ecola, L., and T. Light, Equity and Congestion Pricing A Review of the Evidence (RAND 2009). 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html. Accessed Jan 27, 2012.

35 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms. Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

36 Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are discussed further in Litman T., Evaluating Transportation 

Equity, World Transport Policy & Practice, Volume 8, No. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 50-65. Updated version (2011) 

available at http://www.islandnet.com/~litman/equity.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

39

Evaluation: Examining road pricing projects in regard to various factors in order to assess their equity 

impacts.

Impacts of concern: The aspects of travelers’ lives that are affected by the transportation or pricing 

project.

Indicators: Measurable variables selected to reflect progress toward planning objectives.

Measures to assess equity impact: To allow for comparison between projects or between the present 

situation and the future situation (after the project is built), the equity impacts must employ measures 

that account for the size of the project (e.g., per capita, per vehicle mile, per trip).

Net equity outcome: The positive and negative equity outcomes of a project—sometimes preferable to 

considering only negative outcomes.

Polluter pays principle: Tolls are considered fair if people pay an amount roughly equal to the costs they 

impose on others.37

Remediation: Strategies implemented to reduce inequity.

Toll roads, bridges, and tunnels: Individual routes that apply tolls independently. These facilities often 

collect tolls to repay bonds issued to finance their construction rather than to manage congestion. Tolls 

can be collected manually at tollbooths or electronically using transponder technology.

Types of equity: A set of criteria to constitute equal treatment.

Units of analysis: How equity is analyzed in regard to a particular group of individuals.

Types of Equity

Ability Equity: concerning issues and inequalities effecting physically disabled persons.

Access to tolled facilities equity: A term38 referring to whether barriers to owning a transponder, 

including requiring a credit cards (20 to 40 percent of U.S. households do not own credit cards) and large 

deposits, make using the facility too onerous.

Compensatory equity: Social problems and inequities addressed by providing transportation access or 

resources.

 37 Ecola, L,. and T. Light, Equity and Congestion Pricing A Review of the Evidence (RAND 2009). 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html. Accessed Jan. 27, 2011. 38 Plotnick R., J. Romich, and J. Thacker, The Impacts of Tolling on Low-Income Persons in the Puget Sound Region 

(University of Washington, April 2009). http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/721.1.pdf. 

Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

40

Education equity: concerning issues and inequalities facing less educated users in comparison to degree 

holders.

Environmental/green equity: Equal protection from environmental hazards for individuals, groups, or 

communities regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic status

Gender equity: A less recognized equity issue concerning the behavior and usage differences between 

male and female motorists (e.g., one study finds that women value travel-time reliability more than 

twice as highly as men).39

Generational equity: A subset of vertical equity concerning the burdens placed on future generations 

from policies made by and for the current generation. For example, borrowing for long-lived facilities is 

fair because it spreads the cost across generations of users, as opposed to current users paying for 

future generations.

Geographic equity: A subset of vertical equity concerning how where people work and live influences 

the effect transportation investment decisions has upon them (e.g., State versus state, urban versus 

rural).

Horizontal equity: How members of the same group (e.g., drivers or bus riders) fare relative to one 

another.

Income equity: Sometimes called redistributive equity. This equity type includes the effects on 

economically disadvantaged communities and low-income people. (e.g., do improvements negatively 

impact disadvantaged communities? Are improvements with negative consequences necessary for 

greater State or regional vitality?)

Language equity: concerns and inequalities faced by users not native to the standard language

Life-stage equity: concerning issues and inequalities faced by users of various life-stages in comparison 

to other users such as retirees, people with families, single users, etc.

Market equity: A price charged to each individual or group that is directly proportional to the costs 

imposed and benefits received by that individual or group.

Modal equity: Dedicating revenues to the modes where they were generated (e.g., a state requiring that 

gas tax revenue be spent on roads).

Modal equity: The effect on preferred travel behavior (e.g., Do activities conflict with public perceptions 

for the encouragement of multimodal transportation?).

Occupancy equity: concerning inequities and concerns faced by SOV users in comparison to HOV users 

(and vice versa).

 39 Lam, T. C., and K. A. Small, The Value of Time and Reliability: Measurement from a Value Pricing Experiment, 

Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 37, No. 2–3, 2001, pp. 231–51.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

41

Opportunity equity: Costs/benefits that are proportional to the size of the receiving group without 

regard to any other distinguishing characteristics between groups.

Outcome equity: See vertical equity.

Participation equity: Sometimes called process equity, the ability to participate in the decision-making 

related to a project by responding to a public solicitation, attending a public meeting, rallying neighbors 

to support or oppose a measure, and so on.

Payment medium access equity: Concern over a denial of access to priced road projects or reduced 

equity. A significant portion of the population does not have access to credit cards (20 to 40 percent of 

the population) or checking accounts (10 percent) that facilitate easier use of a road pricing facility. 

Others may find the deposits required to obtain a transponder onerous. Some toll roads require 

transponders. 

Process equity: See Participation equity

Race/ethnicity equity: Considering whether different racial and ethnic groups, particularly minorities, are 

burdened disproportionately, taking into account fees paid, benefits received, and impacts experienced.

Redistributive equity: See Income equity

Spatial equity: A geographic application of the horizontal and vertical equity concepts.

Vertical equity: How members of different groups (e.g., low-income groups versus high-income groups, 

drivers versus non-drivers, or inner-city versus rural residents) fare relative to one another.

Mitigation Terms

All Electronic Tolling (AET): Vehicles are automatically charged via transponder and license plate imaging

Area-license systems: Drivers may travel in and out of a zone an unlimited number of times for a fixed 

fee during certain hours. In addition, licensed residents of the zone may receive a discount or 

exemption.

Cordon pricing: Every time a vehicle crosses a boundary (i.e., cordon) into and out of a charged zone, a 

fee is charged. Generally, the amount of the charge varies between weekdays and weekends and peak 

and off-peak hours. Trips that begin and finish entirely within the zone are not charged.

Credit-based congestion pricing: Revenue-neutral pricing system in which an individual or group receives 

“credit” to charge toward a certain action such as traveling in congestion lanes during rush hour, or a 

certain amount of congestion fees to be used each month.

Disability exemption: Exemption offered to disabled individuals who may not have reasonable 

alternatives for transit (e.g., it is challenging or impossible for wheelchair users to use mass transit).
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

42

Discounts: Reductions in congestion charge offered to certain individuals or groups. 

Distance-based fees: Vehicle use fees based on how many miles a vehicle is driven.

Exemptions: Excluding certain individuals or groups from being charged (e.g., emergency vehicles).

Express lanes: A variation on HOT lanes which carpools must pay a toll to use, though the toll may be 

lower than that charged to solo drivers.

FAIR lanes: Fast and Intertwined Regular Lanes, a variation on HOT lanes whereby drivers in the regular 

(un-tolled) lanes receive credits that, depending on the structure of the program, can be used to pay for 

using the fast (tolled) lanes, or for public transit fares or other transportation services.

Geographic exemptions: Exempting individuals from paying charges based on their 

residential/geographic situation (e.g., residents forced to drive through a cordoned zone regardless of 

their destination). 

HOT lanes: High-occupancy/toll lanes, a version of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Qualified carpool 

vehicles can use HOT lanes free or at a discount, while other vehicles having must pay a toll. All vehicles 

continue to have the option of traveling in free general-purpose lanes.

Income exemption: Exempting individuals or groups from charges on the basis of their income level (e.g., 

household income less than $X is exempt). 

“Lexus Lanes”: A term used to describe road pricing projects as inequitable for lower income drivers. 

The term is effective and popular as a sound bite, but with has negative connotation for many.

Revenue redistribution: Redistributing revenues through public spending on specific transportationrelated improvements.

Road space rationing: Using revenue-neutral credits to ration peak-period roadway capacity.

Time-, distance-, and/or place-based pricing: Adjusting road-user charges based on the distance 

traveled, location, time of day, and vehicle type. Some proposals also adjust the toll based on vehicle 

fuel efficiency or pollution certification level. These tolls are often collected to both finance 

maintenance efforts as well as manage congestion.

-Based Definition/Toll varies by...

Time- time of day

Distance- trip length

Place- Facility type (bridge toll)

Fuel- Electric vehicle may get a discount

Emissions- Electric vehicle may get a discount

Vehicle type- Trucks pay more

TOT lanes: Truck only toll lanes, proposed to reduce traffic and congestion in the general purpose lanes 

by consolidating truck and freight operations into a separate facility
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

43

Transit investment: The use of transportation revenues to improve transit systems (thereby improving 

transportation choices for low-income travelers and those who are affected by new charges). 

Key Policy Definitions

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987: Identified the extent to which Title VI applied, to include all Federalaid recipients, sub-recipients, and contractors, regardless of whether specific activities are federally 

funded or not.

Environmental justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official definition).

Executive Order 12898 of 1994: Established the precedent that environmental justice consideration is 

extended to low-income populations and to avoid “disproportionately high and adverse” effects.

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970: Ensured that transportation facilities would be approved “in the best 

overall public interest” with efforts to eliminate or minimize effects on community cohesion, 

employment effects, and displacement of people.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: An act requiring that for proposed major transportation 

facilities, an analysis of environmental impacts go beyond the infrastructure itself to include a broader 

geographic area.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: States that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of 

race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.40

Other Useful Terms

Ability to Pay: People who have more money pay more (i.e., a project is financed through a progressive 

tax that is paid disproportionately by higher income people).41

Cost recovery: The ratio between costs imposed on users and what they pay in user fees and special 

taxes.

Costs imposed: Users pay for the burden they impose on others (e.g., extra expense required to provide 

express bus service for suburb-to-city commuters is recovered through fares on this service).42

 40United States Code. Title VI: Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 

2000(d) – 2000(d)(1). 41 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

44

“Do-Nothing Alternative”: A solution where no action is taken.

Equity audit tool: A systematic approach to monitor and periodically make needed changes to 

implemented pricing programs to ensure that the tools to promote equitable outcomes are meeting 

their goals.43

Focus groups: Small groups of representative people who are questioned about their opinions as part of 

market research.

Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis—Often used to determine the location of groups 

affected by a project, and related to environmental justice concerns.

Highway cost allocation: Analysis of the costs imposed by various types of vehicles and the degree to 

which they are recovered by user fees.

Limitation: Maximum or minimum amount allowed.

Mobility gap analysis: An analysis of the difference in motorized travel (automobile, public transit, taxi, 

etc.) between households with and without automobiles (“zero-vehicle households”).

Process (or participation): Having a voice when the decision was made (e.g., Public outreach regarding 

proposed new high-occupancy toll lanes provides transparent information and seeks to involve all 

affected parties in public hearings and workshops.).44

Progressive: Placing a higher burden on those with higher incomes (e.g., the U.S. income tax).

Regressive: Placing a higher burden on those with lower incomes (e.g., a uniform tax of $500 is 

regressive, since $500 is a larger proportion of a lower income).

Return to Source: “We get back what we put in” (i.e., transit investment in each county is matched to 

that county’s share of metropolitan tax revenues used for transit).

45

Revenue: The income of a party from all sources, used to pay for the party’s expenses.

 42 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011. 43 Ecola, L,. and T. Light, Equity and Congestion Pricing A Review of the Evidence (RAND 2009). 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html. Accessed Jan . 27, 2012. 44 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance 

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

45 Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms, Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance

Mechanisms, Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

45

Revenue-neutral: Having no effect on overall revenue.

Subsidy: A form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector.

Surveys: Examinations of opinions, behaviors, effects, and so on.

Transponder: A wireless communications, monitoring, or control device that picks up and automatically 

responds to an incoming signal.

Unbanked: Lacking access to a bank account either by choice or by circumstance.

Uniform: Treating all people equally from a strictly monetary perspective (e.g., a uniform tax would 

charge each person the same amount, and a uniform redistribution of revenues would provide each 

person with the same amount of money).

Welfare: The overall well-being of people, either as individuals or collectively.

In addition to the specific citations, the following sources were consulted in developing the glossary:

Texas Transportation Institute with assistance from Cambridge Systematics, Background Paper #4: 

Equity, Fairness, and Uniformity in Tolling, Washington State Comprehensive Tolling Study, Final Report, 

Volume 2, September 2006 (paper completed January 2006). 

http://www.wstc.wa.gov/Rates/Tolling/FR1_WS_TollStudy_Vol2_Paper04.pdf Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

Ecola L. and Light T., Equity and Congestion Pricing A Review of the Evidence (RAND 2009). 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html. Accessed January 27, 2012.

Equity of Evolving Transportation Finance Mechanisms, (Transportation Research Board Committee 

Special Report 303, 2011). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf

King D.A., Remediating Inequity in Transportation Finance, (Transportation Research Board Special 

Report 303, 2009). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303King.pdf Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.

Litman T., Evaluating Transportation Equity, World Transport Policy & Practice, Volume 8, No. 2, 

Summer 2002, pp. 50-65. Updated version (2011) available at 

http://www.islandnet.com/~litman/equity.pdf

Litman T., TDM Encyclopedia, VTPI, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

46

APPENDIX B: POTENTIAL REMEDIATION STRATEGIES

Altering the design of the finance policy

• Price design limitations

• Increased access to transponders

• Park and ride facilities 

• Revenues redistributed directly to collecting city

• Geographic system design

• Credit-based congestion pricing 

Giving exemptions, discounts, subsidies, or rebates to parties adversely affected by the policy

• Discounts/exemptions

• Subsidies

Offering or improving alternative transportation services

• Revenue redistribution

• Increased access to alternative transit

Policy choices that complicate remediation measures

• All Electronic Tolling (AET)

• Long-term concession agreements; Public Private Partnerships

• Sales tax increase
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

47

Altering the Design of the Finance Policy

Increased Access to Transponders/Stickers

Brief 

Description

Motorists can apply for and receive transponders at public assistance offices and other 

sites frequented by the general population including gas stations, and local retailers.

Deployment 

Sites

Puerto Rico (Auto Expreso System), Texas (TxTag), Washington (SR 520 bridge customer

service centers), Minnesota (MnPASS), E-ZPASS (northeast US), Florida (SunPass),

Seattle (Good To Go SR-520)

Benefactors Low-income users

Why this 

strategy is 

used

People who only have access to cash and no stable bank account cannot pay with 

traditional transponder technology that is linked to a debit or credit card. Drivers need 

low cash deposit/no credit card necessary payment options.

Additional 

details

With some transponders, it is possible to reload with cash (i.e., Florida turnpike SunPass 

and AutoExpreso in Puerto Rico) at kiosks located at facilities and various retailers. This 

cash reload option allows for toll transponder benefits while still allowing use by the 

Price Design Limitations

Brief 

Description

Identifying a maximum number of crossings that can be charged per time period.

Deployment 

Sites

New York City, Stockholm, Trondheim (Norway), Singapore

Benefactors Frequent users

Why this 

strategy is 

used

May address spatial equity concerns and adverse impacts to one geographic area 

including drivers that due to the geography of their residency enter or exit the charged 

zone multiple times/day.

Additional 

details

Popular price design limitations include defining both the maximum allowed charge for 

each crossing and/or the maximum number of crossings that can be charged per period. 

Allowances may also be implemented allowing for unlimited use of priced facilities 

during certain periods (ex. holidays, weekends, off-peak hours). Inequities can arise in 

cordon pricing schemes due where some drivers, due to the geography of their 

residency, have no choice but to enter/exit the cordoned zone multiple times per day. 

Exemptions and/or placing a limit on the maximum number of crossings charged per 

day can address these inequities while still allowing the pricing in place to discourage 

others from driving in highly congested city centers.

Links to more 

information

Information about the Trondheim, Norway pricing system: 

http://www.progress-project.org/Progress/tron.html

Information on congestion pricing trials in Stockholm, Sweden:

http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/templates/page.aspx?id=183

Paper about Singapore road pricing lessons learned:

http://www.imprint-eu.org/public/Papers/IMPRINT3_chin.pdf

TDM encyclopedia chapter on road pricing: 

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

48

unbanked.

With an increasing number of toll plazas converting to all electronic tolling, increased 

access to transponder technology can greatly ease this transition.

Links to more 

information

Article about the wide availability of Florida SunPass transponders and where/how they 

can be paid for with cash:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-06-27/news/fl-sunpass-kiosks20100625_1_sunpass-account-sunpass-mini-transponders

Information about Florida SunPass transponders:

https://www.sunpass.com/index

Short article about SR520 Good-to-Go transponder availability:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/2011/02/15/good-to-go-electronic-tollpasses-for-sr-520-now-available/

AutoExpreso (Puerto Rico) retail locations for obtaining AutoExpreso toolkit and 

replenishing toll amounts:

https://www.autoexpreso.com

Geographic System Design

Brief 

Description

Geographic system design applies mostly to cordon pricing. Under this strategy, cordon 

boundaries, exit points, etc. are purposefully located in ways that will maximize equity.

Deployment 

Sites

London and Stockholm (cordon boundaries), NYC cordon pricing

Benefactors All drivers

Why this 

strategy is 

used

Maximize equity

Additional 

details

There may be a conflict between maximizing equity and maximizing revenue. Revenue 

concerns often trump equity concerns and cordon pricing schemes are likely to be 

designed with revenue as the top priority.

Links to more 

information

Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing: A Primer, FHWA:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/fhwahop08040.pdf
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

49

Credit-based Congestion Pricing

Brief 

Description

Drivers receive a monthly allowance of travel “credits” to be used on toll roads. Drivers 

only pay money “out of pocket” if they exceed their allowance. Drivers who spend less 

than their allowance can allow the credits to roll over for later use or exchange them for 

cash. Extra credits may be allotted to those with special, socially desirable, travel needs 

(ex. welfare-to-work participants, and single parent low-income household heads).

Deployment 

Sites

Pilot Sites:

• FAST Miles (tested statewide in Minnesota and in Austin, TX)

• HOT/C (HOT Credit) Lanes (tested in Alameda County, CA)

Benefactors All drivers

Why this 

strategy is 

used

Strategy predicts increased transit use, peak travel to decrease, and total vehicle 

emissions to decrease. Potential to optimize network use and address equity, welfare, 

and revenue-distribution. 

Additional 

details

Credit-based systems have not been implemented as of 2011 but feasibility testing has 

proved promising.

Implementation is easier with electronic toll collection.

Links to more 

information

Academic paper describing credit-based pricing:

http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TR-A-CBCP.pdf HOT Credit 

Lanes Feasibility Study-Alameda County, CA, 2005:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/pubs_reports/projectreports/hot

_credit_lanes.htm
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

50

Giving Exemptions, Discounts, Subsidies, or Rebates to Parties Adversely Affected by the Policy

Discounts/Exemptions

Brief 

Description

Discounts (reducing the amount of congestion charge paid) and exemptions (excluding 

certain persons or vehicles from payment) are often offered to certain types of vehicles 

and motorists with special transportation needs.

Deployment 

Sites

Widely implemented (most cities exempt transit and emergency vehicles), Milan and 

other cities also discount low-emission vehicles, London

Benefactors Persons with special transportation needs and certain types of vehicles (ex. hybrid, 

emergency, military, law enforcement, etc.)

Why this 

strategy is 

used

Allow for unhindered travel of emergency personnel; encourage motorists to drive lowemission vehicles

Additional 

details

May have cost and enforcement consequences. The Los Angeles Metro Express Lanes 

have a Toll Credit Program that provides a $25 credit to low-income households (less 

than $35,000, twice the local poverty line) to be used towards either account 

transponder deposit or pre-paid tolls. Drivers in the Toll Credit Program will also have 

the $3 monthly account maintenance fee waived.

Links to more 

information

Potential Impact of Exempt Vehicles on HOV Lanes, FHWA:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/exemptvehicleshov/chapter4.htm Information on 

Low Emission Zones for Italy & Germany:

http://www.iema.net/news/envnews?aid=17943

Solo drivers of low-emission autos fume over fees to use carpool lanes, LA Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/14/business/la-fi-autos-carpool-20110914

Academic paper on lessons learned from road pricing in London:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-

0327.2006.00159.x/abstract;jsessionid=DCD5887FCE108B1D8E78B0726F6A797D.d03t0

3

Discounts and exemptions for London charging zone:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6713.aspx

Los Angeles Metro Toll Credit Program

http://www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

51

Subsidies

Brief 

Description

A portion of revenue from the project is used to subsidize the toll cost/costs of lowincome commuters or transit.

Deployment 

Sites

Central Texas toll roads (Texas 130, Loop 1, Texas 45N), Germany and France (taxpayers 

can deduct commuting expenses from their income tax liability)

Benefactors Low-income commuters

Why this 

strategy is 

used

Encourage use of facilities by low-income population

Additional 

details

Not widely implemented, it is more likely that low-income commuters will be offered a 

discount up front rather than receive a subsidy. Toll revenue is also more likely to be 

diverted to the low-income community through improvements to low-income transit 

options. Subsidy proposals are often not well received by the general population.

Links to more 

information

Tolls would subsidize rail line along Route 422, Chester County Daily Local News:

http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20110919/NEWS/309199941/tolls-would-subsidizerail-line-along-route-422

Using Drivers' Tolls to Subsidize Light Rail across the Columbia River is Wrong, The 

Columbian-Op/Ed section:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/using-drivers-tolls-subsidizelight-rail-across-columbia-river-wrong

Offering or Improving Alternative Transportation Services

Revenue Redistribution

Brief 

Description

Revenue from facility is redistributed through public spending on specific 

transportation-related improvements.

Deployment 

Sites

Widely implemented (common practice among recent pricing projects) I-15 in San Diego 

(funds support express bus service), Norwegian toll rings (funds support 

roadway/transit improvement)

Benefactors All commuters

Why this 

strategy is 

used

Revenue is used to make improvements to facilities, roads, etc. to benefit and provide 

additional travel modes to all corridor users.

Additional 

details

Links to more 

information
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

52

Increased Access to Alternative Transit

Brief 

Description

Transit, vanpools, paratransit, or other options as alternatives in locations not served by 

mass transit. Expand existing facilities to serve more people.

Deployment 

Sites

Widely implemented, Washington State light rail expansion, Campus 

carsharing/ridesharing programs (message-boards & social media to connect people to 

transit)

Miami (Dade and Broward Counties), I-95 Express Lanes introduced significant new Bus 

Rapid Transit service in the corridor in advance of opening of Phase 1. This new service, 

coupled with dramatic improvement in travel speeds in the managed lanes, resulted in 

a 145% increase in ridership in the first two years of the project.

Benefactors Non-drivers, Choice transit riders (those who own cars), All drivers (congestion 

reduction)

Why this 

strategy is 

used

Reduce congestion in urban areas and potentially share/split toll rates.

Additional 

details

Links to more 

information

Information on Puget Sound (Washington) Transit Capital projects:

http://projects.soundtransit.org/

Virginia Tech alternative transportation information:

http://www.facilities.vt.edu/tcs/alternative/
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

53

Sales Tax Increase

Brief 

Description

Under this strategy, sales tax is increased in order to fund transit and infrastructure 

rather than relying solely on revenue generated by pricing projects. 

Deployment 

Sites

Massachusetts (2009), Durham County, NC (2011)

Benefactors Users of public transportation (transit projects receive funding from sales tax more 

often than roadway projects)

Why this 

strategy is 

used

This has been argued as a more equitable as all residents are charged equally based on 

their purchases. Sales tax is also a fairly reliable source of revenue during uncertain 

economic periods and can make up for budget shortfalls.

Additional 

details

Links to more 

information

Brief on regions that fund transit with sales tax:

http://www.tlcminnesota.org/pdf/Sources%20of%20funding%20for%20public%20transi

t%202009%20Final%20April%2021.pdf

Durham voters approve sales tax increase for transit, Triangle Business Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2011/11/09/durham-voters-approve-salestax.html

Mass. Senate OKs transportation bill that includes sales tax increase, no toll or gas tax 

increase, Masslive.com article,2009:

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/mass_senate_oks_transportation.h

tml

Possible Sales Tax Increase to Help Fund Public Transportation:

http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=287497
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

54

APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY

407 ETR. “407 Express Toll Route” [All electronic tolling; Ontario]. http://www.407etr.com/index.html

Algers, S., K. Brundell Freij, et al. "The Stockholm Congestion Charging Trial—What Happened?" 

http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Rapporter/Expert_group_summary_060621.pdf

Altshuler, A., “Equity, Pricing, and Surface Transportation Politics.” Paper commissioned for 

Transportation Research Board Special Report 303. 2010. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303Altshuler.pdf 

Anderson, D., and H. Mohring. “Congestion Costs and Congestion Pricing.” In The Full Costs and Benefits 

of Transportation: Contributions to Theory, Method and Measurement (J. D. Greene, D. W. 

Jones, and M. A. Delucchi, eds.) New York: Springer 1997.

Bagley, C. "Durham Voters Approve Sales Tax Increase for Transit." Triangle Business Journal. The 

Business Journals Digital Network. November 9, 2011. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2011/11/09/durham-voters-approve-sales-tax.html

Baker, R., et al. “Moving Beyond Lexus Lanes: Equity Considerations for Managed Lanes.” Transportation 

Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, 2008. http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=848563

Bayles, F. "Toll Lanes: A Freer Ride, for a Price." USA Today, April 9, 2004. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-07-tolls-usat_x.htm

Berg, J., K. Bhatt, and T. Higgins T. Value Pricing Pilot Program: Lessons Learned Final Report (KTA & CSI, 

2008). http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08023/vppp_lessonslearned.pdf

Boehm, E. "Tolls Would Subsidize Rail Line along Route 422,” Dailylocal.com. Daily Local News : Serving 

Chester County. September 19, 2011.

http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20110919/NEWS/309199941/tolls-would-subsidize-rail-linealong-route-422

Bonsall, P., and C. Kelly. “Road User Charging and Social Exclusion: The Impact of Congestion Charges on 

At-Risk Groups.” Transport Policy, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2005, pp. 406–18.

Bork, R., and M. Wrede. “Political economy of commuting subsidies.” Journal of Urban Economics No. 

57,2005, pp. 478–99. http://pdfcast.org/pdf/political-economy-of-commuting-subsidies

Burris, M., and R. Hannay. “Equity Analysis of the Houston Quickride Project.” Transportation Research 

Record 1859. March 2003. https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/mburris/Papers/TRR%201859%20-

%20EQUITY%20ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20HOUSTON,%20TEXAS,%20QUICKRIDE%20PROJECT.

pdf
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

55

Burt, M., G. Sowell, J. Crawford, and T. Carlson. Synthesis of Congestion Pricing-Related Environmental 

Impact Analyses – Final Report. 2010. 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop11008/index.htm

Carlson, D., Z. Howard. Impacts of VMT Reduction Strategies on Selected Areas and Groups. Washington 

State Department of Transportation, 2010. 

www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/751.1.pdf

Committee on the Equity of Transportation Finance Mechanisms. Equity of Evolving Transportation 

Finance Mechanisms. Transportation Research Board Special Report 303 (August 2011). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303.pdf

DeCorla-Souza, P., “Fair Highway Networks: A New Approach to Eliminate Congestion on Metropolitan 

Freeways,” Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2005, pp. 196–205.

DeCorla-Souza, P. “Improving Metropolitan Transportation Efficiency with Fast Miles.” Journal of 

PublicTransportation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 45–70. 

E-470 Public Highway Authority. "E-470." https://www.expresstoll.com/Pages/Home.aspx

Ecola, L., and T. Light. Equity and Congestion Pricing: A Review of the Evidence RAND. 2009. 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html

Eichler, M. D., G. K. Miller, and J. Park. Evaluating Alternative Scenarios for a Network of Variably Priced 

Highway Lanes in the Metropolitan Washington Region—Final Report February 2008. 

http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/aF5fWVlW20080314161420.pdf

Land Transport Authority of Singapore. "Electronic Road Pricing." 

http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/managing-traffic-andcongestion/electronic-road-pricing-erp.html

Ennis, M. "Using Drivers' Tolls to Subsidize Light Rail across the Columbia River Is Wrong” Washington

Policy Center. March 13, 2011. http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/usingdrivers-tolls-subsidize-light-rail-across-columbia-river-wrong.

FHWA. Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing: A Primer. FHWA-HOP-08-040. 2009. 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/fhwahop08040.pdf

FHWA. Potential Impact of Exempt Vehicles on HOV Lanes. “Chapter Four—HOV Exemptions for Law 

Enforcement and Public Transportation Vehicles." FHWA-HOP-05-058. August 2005. 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/exemptvehicleshov/chapter4.htm

FHWA. “The Role of Fast and Intertwined Regular (FAIR) Lanes in the New York Metropolitan Region.” 

Conference proceedings. 2002. 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/fairlanes.htm
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

56

FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery. "Project Profiles: Indiana Toll Road." 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/in_indianatoll.htm

FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery. "Project Profiles: New-Build Facilities." 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/project_profiles/index.htm

FHWA and TxDOT, “Joint Guidance for Project and Network Level Environmental Justice, Regional 

Network Land Use, and Air Quality Analyses for Toll Roads.” April 23, 2009. [Obtained by email 

between Anita Wilson and Patrick DeCorla-Souza, FHWA]

Florida's Turnpike Enterprise. "All-Electronic Open Road Tolling." http://www.floridasturnpike.com/allelectronictolling/

Franklin, J. “The Equity Effects of Roadway Tolls: An Application of Hicksian Welfare Measures with 

Income Effects.” Conference Paper Workshop 2.4. Proc., International Conference on Travel 

Behaviour Research, Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 16–20, 2006. 

http://www.urbansim.org/pub/Research/ResearchPapers/franklin-2006-iatbr.pdf

Fridström, L., H. Minken, P. Moilanen, S. Shepherd, and A. Vold. Economic and Equity Effects of 

Marginal Cost Pricing in Transport: Case Studies from Three European Cities. Technical Report. 

(Helsinki, Finland: Government Institute for Economic Research) 2000.

Giuliano, G., et al. Pricing & Social Equity: Road Pricing & Barriers to Social Inclusion. USC SPPD Keston 

Institute. April 16. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmqF_DmuICQ

Glaister, S. “National Road Pricing: Policy Design and Public Acceptance.” Paper presented at 

International Trade Center–Co-Ordination of Urban Road-User Charging Organizational Issues.

2007.

Glaister, S., and D. Graham. “An Evaluation of National Road User Charging in England.” Transportation 

Research Part A, Vol. 39, 2005, pp. 632–50.

Gomez-Ibanez, J. A. “The Political Economy of Highway Tolls and Congestion Pricing.” Transportation 

Quarterly XLVI, No. 2, July 1992.

Gonzales, E.J. “Efficiency and Equity of Pricing Strategies for Cars and Transit.” Presentation at TRB 

Annual Meeting. January 2012.

Goodin, G., R. Poole, C. Fuhs, J. Tsien, and J. Lee. I-405/SR 167 Corridor Tolling Study Expert Review Panel 

Final Report. December 2010. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EBD4BC88-9606-4388-

92BA-B862AA566CEC/72822/405ExpertReviewFinalReport_a.pdf

Goodwin, P. “The Rule of Three: A Possible Solution to the Political Problem of Competing Objectives for 

Road Pricing.” Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1989, pp. 495–97.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

57

Gutierrez, S. "Good to Go! Electronic Toll Passes for SR 520 Now Available." Blogs - Seattlepi.com. 

February 15, 2011. http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/2011/02/15/good-to-go-electronictoll-passes-for-sr-520-now-available/

Hamer, P., Currie, G., Young, W. “Equity Implications of Parking Taxes,” Presentation at TRB Annual 

Meeting 2012. January 2012.

Hirsch, J. "Solo Drivers of Low-emission Autos Fume over Fees to Use Carpool Lanes - Los Angeles 

Times." The Los Angeles Times, September 14, 2011. 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/14/business/la-fi-autos-carpool-20110914

ICF International. Environmental Justice in Transportation: Emerging Trends and Best Practices. FHWA. 

2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/lib/guidebook/index.cfm

Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. “Coordination of Urban Road User Charging 

Organisational Issues.” State of the Art Review.” May 2009. 

Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. "Equity." State of the Art Review. April 1, 2006.

Leromonachou, P., S. Potter, and J. P. Warren. “Norway’s Urban Toll Rings: Evolving Towards Congestion 

Charging?” Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 5, September 2006, pp. 367–78.

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. Low Emission Zones for Italy and Germany. 

January 2, 2008. http://www.iema.net/news/envnews?aid=17943

Johnson, G. "Mass. Senate OKs Transportation Bill That Includes Sales Tax Increase, No Toll or Gas Tax 

Increase.” Masslive.com. June 18, 2009. 

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/mass_senate_oks_transportation.html

Johnston, R. A., and C. J. Rodier.”Synergisms Among Land Use, Transit, and Travel Pricing Policies.” 

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1670, 1999, 

pp. 3–7.

King County Metro Transit. “King County Park & Ride Lot Information." 

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/parknride/parknride.html

King, D. A. “Remediating Inequity in Transportation Finance.” Paper commissioned for Transportation 

Research Board Special Report 303. 2009. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303King.pdf

King, D. A., M. Manville, and D. Shoup. “For Whom the Road Tolls.” Access (University of California 

Transportation Center) No. 31, 2007. http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/ForWhomTheRoadTolls.pdf

King, D. A., M. Manville, and D. Shoup. “The Political Calculus of Congestion Pricing.” Transport Policy, 

Vol. 14, No. 2, March 2007, pp. 111–23. http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PoliticalCalculus.pdf
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

58

Klein, D. B., and G. J. Fielding. “Private Toll Roads: Learning from the 19th Century.” Transportation

Quarterly. Vol. 46, No. 3, July 1992, pp. 321–41.

Kockelman, K. M., and S. Kalmanje. “Credit-Based Congestion Pricing: A Policy Proposal and the Public’s 

Response.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Vol. 39, No. 7–9, August–

November 2005.

K.T. Analytics and Cambridge Systematics. Value Pricing Pilot Program: Lessons Learned. FHWA, August 

2008. http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08023/vppp_lessonslearned.pdf

Lam, T. C., and K. A. Small. “The Value of Time and Reliability: Measurement from a Value Pricing 

Experiment.” Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 37, No. 2–3, 2001, pp. 231–51.

Larsen, L., Burris, M., et al. “Equity Evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled Fees in Texas,” Presentation at 

TRB Annual Meeting. January 2012.

The Leadership Conference Education Fund. Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for 

Transportation Equity. March 2011. 

http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/docs/transportation/52846576-Where-We-Need-to-GoA-Civil-Rights-Roadmap-for-Transportation-Equity.pdf

Levinson, D. “Equity Effects of Road Pricing: A Review.” Transport Reviews, Vo. 30, No. 1, 2010, pp. 33—

57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441640903189304

Litman, T. Changing Vehicle Travel Price Sensitivities: The Rebounding Rebound Effect. Victoria Transport 

Policy Institute, 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/VMT_Elasticities.pdf

Litman, T. “Evaluating Transportation Equity.” World Transport Policy & Practice. Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 

2002, pp. 50–65. Updated version (May 2011). http://www.islandnet.com/~litman/equity.pdf

Litman, T. "Park & Ride." Online TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, January 26, 2010. 

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm27.htm

Litman, T. "Road Pricing-Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads, and HOT Lanes." Online TDM 

Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. June 9, 2011. 

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm

Litman, T. Smart Transportation Investments: Reevaluating the Role of Highway Expansion for Improving 

Urban Transportation. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. October 1, 2006. 

http://www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf

Litman, T. Transportation Affordability: Evaluation and Improvement Strategies. Victoria Transport Policy 

Institute. 2011. www.vtpi.org/affordability.pdf

Litman, T. Using Road Pricing Revenue: Economic Efficiency and Equity Considerations. Victoria Transport 

Policy Institute. February 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/revenue.pdf
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

59

Litman, T., and M. Brenman. A New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation. Victoria 

Transport Policy Institute. March 2011. http://www.vtpi.org/equityagenda.pdf

Lloyd, G. "Voters to Decide on Sales Tax." The Chronicle. Duke University. (n.d.)

http://dukechronicle.com/article/voters-decide-sales-tax

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority in partnership with the California 

Department of Transportation. Los Angeles Region Express Lanes Project: AB 1467 Application. 

March 2008.

Los Angeles Metro. "Park & Ride Lots." http://www.metro.net/around/paid_parking/.

Maruyama, T., and A. Sumalee. “Efficiency and Equity Comparison of Cordon- and Area-Based Road 

Pricing Schemes Using A Trip-Chain Equilibrium Model.” Transportation Research Part A. Vol. 41, 

No. 7, 2007, pp. 655–71.

Maryland DOT State Highway Administration. The Intercounty Connector. http://www.iccproject.com/

MDXWay. Miami-Dade Expressway Authority. http://www.mdx-way.com/

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "Park and Ride Lot Locations." Commuter 

Connections. http://www.mwcog.org/commuter2/commuter/ridesharing/prlocations.html

Mitchell, G. “Forecasting Environmental Equity: Air Quality Responses to Road User Charging in Leeds, 

UK.” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2005, pp. 212–26.

Mohring, H. “Congestion.” In Essays in Transportation Economics and Policy: A Handbook in Honor of 

John R. Meyer (J. Gomez-Ibanez, W. Tye and C. Winston, eds.) Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution Press, 1999, pp. 181–222.

Munnich, L. W., Jr., and K. R. Buckeye. “I-394 MnPASS High-Occupancy Toll Lanes, Planning and 

Operational Issues and Outcomes (Lessons Learned in Year 1).” Transportation Research Record 

No. 1996: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007.

Nakamura, K., and K. Kockelman. “Congestion Pricing and Roadspace Rationing: An Application to the 

San Francisco Bay Bridge Corridor.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2002, pp. 

403–17.

New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. Report to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation 

Commission & Recommended Implementation Plan. January 2008.

North Texas Tollway Authority. "Cashless Tolling (all-ETC)." 

http://www.ntta.org/AboutUs/Projects/AllETC/

North Texas Tollway Authority. "Open for Business: Sam Rayburn Tollway & Dallas North Tollway 

Interchange ‘Making Travel Better.’" http://www.ntta.org/
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

60

Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs. "Project Descriptions." FHWA. April 5, 2011. 

Parkany, E. “Environmental Justice Issues Related to Transponder Ownership and Road Pricing.” 

Transportation Research Record, a Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1932, 2005, pp. 

97–108.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., et al. "HOT Credit Lanes Feasibility Study." Alameda County 

Congestion Management Agency. August 2005. 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/pubs_reports/projectreports/hot_credit_l

anes.htm

The Pennsylvania Turnpike. "All Electronic Tolling (AET)-How Does It Work?" AET Feasibility Study. 

http://www.paturnpike.com/aet_public/aet.asp

The Pennsylvania Turnpike. "Welcome to E-ZPass on the Pennsylvania Turnpike." 

http://www.paturnpike.com/ezpass/ezpassINTRO.htm

Plotnick, R., J. Romich, and J. Thacker. The Impacts of Tolling on Low-Income Persons in the Puget Sound 

Region. University of Washington, April 2009. 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/721.1.pdf

Private communication with MacGregor, M. Texas Department of Transportation, CDA/Tollway Director, 

2009.

Progress Project. "Trondheim (Norway)." http://www.progress-project.org/Progress/tron.html

Pucher, J., and J. L. Renne. “Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS.” 

Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3, Summer 2003, pp. 49–77. 

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/articles/socioeconomicsOfUrbanTravel.pdf

Riverside County Transportation Commission. "SR-91 Project." SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project. 

http://rctc.org/projects/state-route-91/sr-91-corridor-improvement-project

Robinson, G., R. Kuzmyak, and T. Sanchez. Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation 

Toolkit. Federal Transit Administration, May 2007. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10961106/tecrptaski3bts

Rodier, C., J. E. Abraham, B.N. Dix, and J.D. Hunt. Equity Analysis of Land Use and Transport Plans Using 

an Integrated Spatial Model, Report 09-08. Mineta Transportation Institute, 2010.

www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Equity%20Analysis%20of

%20Land%20Use%20(with%20Covers).pdf 

Rosenbloom, S. “The Equity Implications of Financing the Nation’s Surface Transportation System.” TR 

News, No. 261, March–April 2009, pp. 3–9.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

61

Safirova, E., K. Gillingham, I Parry, et al. Welfare and Distributional Effects of Road Pricing Schemes for 

Metropolitan Washington, DC. October 2003. http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-03-

57.pdf

San Francisco County Transportation Authority. San Francisco Mobility, Access and Pricing Study: Final 

Report. December 2010.

San Francisco Department of Public Health, Program on Health Equity and Sustainability. Assessing the 

Health Impacts of Road Pricing Policy Proposals. 2010. 

Santos, G., and G. Fraser. “Road pricing: lessons from London.” Economic Policy. Vol. 21, Is. 46, 2006, 

pp. 263–310. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-

0327.2006.00159.x/abstract;jsessionid=3BA0639AA164C0DF2E3A66008BFDD0B8.d02t01.

Schweitzer, L. “The Empirical Research on the Social Equity of Gas Taxes, Emissions Fees, and Congestion 

Charges,” Paper commissioned for Transportation Research Board Committee Special Report 

303. 2009. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303Schweitzer.pdf

Schweitzer, L., and B. Taylor. “Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales 

Taxes.” Transportation, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2008, pp. 797–812. 

Seattle Department of Transportation. Seattle Variable Tolling Study. May 2009. 

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/FINAL%20Tolling%20Study%20report%20revised%

206.25.10.pdf

Skyway Concession Company. "Chicago Skyway." 2005. http://www.chicagoskyway.org/

Small, K., Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing. Transportation. Vol. 19, No. 4, 1992, pp. 359-381.

Sound Transit. "Sound Transit Capital Projects." http://projects.soundtransit.org/

Space Coast Area Transit. http://www.ridescat.com/

Steininger, K., B. Friedl, and B. Gebetsroither. “Sustainability Impacts of Car Road Pricing: A Computable 

General Equilibrium Analysis for Austria.” Ecological Economics. Vol. 63, No. 1, 2007, pp. 59–69.

Stevens, M. "Possible Sales Tax Increase to Help Fund Public Transportation." Nwa.com. November 22, 

2011. http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=287497.

"The Stockholm Trials 22 August 2005 - 31 July 2006." Stockholmsförsöket. 

http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/templates/page.aspx?id=183.

Sullivan, E. Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR-91 Value-Priced Lanes: Final Report. Cal 

Poly State University-San Luis Obispo, December 2000.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

62

Swan, P. F., and M. H. Belzer. “Empirical Evidence of Toll Road Traffic Diversion and Implications for 

Highway Infrastructure Privatization.” Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 14, No. 4, 

2010, pp. 351–73.

Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority. Selmon Expressway. http://www.tampa-xway.com/.

Taylor, B.D. How Fair is Road Pricing? Evaluating Equity in Transportation Pricing and Finance. UCLA 

Institute of Transportation Studies. September 2010. 

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Pricing%20EquityFIN.pdf

Teubel, U. “The Welfare Effects and Distributional Impacts of Road User Charges on Commuters—An 

Empirical Analysis of Dresden.” International Journal of Transport Economics. Vol. 27, 2000, pp.

231–55.

Texas Transportation Institute with assistance from Cambridge Systematics. “Background Paper #4: 

Equity, Fairness, and Uniformity in Tolling.” Washington State Comprehensive Tolling Study, 

Final Report, Volume 2. September 2006. 

http://www.wstc.wa.gov/Rates/Tolling/FR1_WS_TollStudy_Vol2_Paper04.pdf

Toups, D. T., San Diego Association of Governments. FasTrak Study—Follow-Up Questions. E-mail to 

Liisa Ecola, December 18, 2008.

Transit for Livable Communities. "Most Regions Fund Transit with Sales Tax." A Transit for Livable 

Communities Policy Brief. April 2009. 

http://www.tlcminnesota.org/pdf/Sources%20of%20funding%20for%20public%20transit%2020

09%20Final%20April%2021.pdf

Transport for London. "Discounts and Exemptions." http://www.cclondon.com/exemptions.shtml

Turnbell, M. "Florida Drivers Can Use Cash Now to Reload SunPass Transponders." The Sun Sentinel. 

June 27, 2010. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-06-27/news/fl-sunpass-kiosks20100625_1_sunpass-account-sunpass-mini-transponders

Ungemah, D.H., “This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land: Addressing Equity and Fairness in Tolling 

and Pricing.” Transportation Research Record. Vol. 2013, 2007, pp. 13–20.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Evaluating Pricing Strategies: Factors To Consider when Evaluating 

TDM Strategies that Change Transportation Prices. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy 

Institute, May 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm70.htm

Virginia Tech Facilities Services. "Alternative Transportation." 2010. 

http://www.facilities.vt.edu/tcs/alternative/

Washington State Department of Transportation. Eight-Month Performance Summary of SR 167 High 

Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Pilot Project. January 2008.
Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing

63

Wear, B. “Central Texas Toll Roads Need More State Subsidies than Expected.” The Austin-American 

Statesman. July 18, 2011. http://www.statesman.com/news/local/central-texas-toll-roads-needmore-state-subsidies-1618544.html

Weinstein, A., and G. C. Sciara. Assessing the Equity Implications of HOT Lanes: A Report Prepared for the 

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. San Jose State University and University of 

California Berkeley. November 2004. http://www.vta.org/projects/hot_lanes/hot_equity.pdf

Weinstein, A., and G. C. Sciara. “Unraveling Equity in HOT Lane Planning: A View from Practice.” Journal 

of Planning Education and Research. No. 26, 2006, pp. 174–184.

West, S. “The Incidence of Public Finance Schemes.” Paper commissioned for Transportation Research 

Board Committee Special Report 303. 2009. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr303West.pdf

Whitty, J., and B. Imholt. Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program: Report to the 

73rd Oregon Legislative Assembly on Proposed Alternatives to the Current System of Taxing 

Highway Use Through Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes. Salem: Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2005. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/2005LegislativeReport.pdf.

Zhang, L., D. Levinson, and S. Zhu. “Agent-Based Model of Price Competition, Capacity Choice, and 

Product Differentiation on Congested Networks.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.

Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008, pp. 435–61.

Zhang, L., B. S. McMullen, D. Valluri, and K. Nakahara. The Short- and Long-Run Impacts of Vehicle 

Mileage Fee on Income and Spatial Equity. March 2009. 

https://wiki.umd.edu/lei/images/f/fe/Zhang2009b.pdf
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations (HOP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-HOP-13-033