Congestion pricing response : study for potential implementation in the Metropolitan Atlanta Area : [executive summary]

Congestion Pricing Response
Study for Potential Implementation in the Metropolitan Atlanta Area

Produced for Prepared by

Georgia Department of Transportation Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development & School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology

Catherine L. Ross, Ph.D., Director and Harry West Chair, CQGRD Principal Investigator
Randall Guensler, Ph.D.., Assistant Professor, CEE Co-Principal Investigator
Jason Barringer and Amy Danner, Research Scientists, CQGRD Molly Allen, Elise Barrella, Jessica Doyle, and Lyubov Zuyeva,
Graduate Research Assistants

October 2008

Congestion Pricing Response

Study for Potential Implementation in the Metropolitan Atlanta Area

Congestion Pricing Response Report Contents
Executive Summary Section I: Literature Review Section II: Expert Panel and Survey Section III: Demographic/Travel Profiles

About Georgia Department of Transportation
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) plans, constructs, maintains and improves the state's roads and bridges; provides planning and financial support for other modes of transportation; provides airport and air safety planning; and provides air travel to state departments. For more information, visit www.dot.state.ga.us.
About School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) was established 1896 and encompasses three degreeawarding programs, including civil engineering, environmental engineering, and engineering science and mechanics. For more information, visit www.ce.gatech.edu.

Section IV: Focus Groups
Section V: Emissions Modeling Assessment Framework
Appendices

About Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development
The Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD) is an applied research center of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Center serves communities-- particularly those in the Southeast United States--by producing, disseminating, and helping to implement new ideas and technologies that improve the theory and practice of quality growth. For more information about CQGRD visit www.cqgrd.gatech.edu.

2008 by Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD). All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including the notice, is given to source. Available electronically at _________________________________ ____________________________.

Cover Credit: Amy Danner, CQGRD

Executive Summary
Traffic congestion is an increasing burden on American cities. Congested highways delay truck transport and commuters, causing economic and social losses to local businesses and residents and making the area as a whole less attractive to potential residents, investors and visitors. Drivers suffer increased stress and the resulting negative health effects. Long delays in car travel leads to greater amounts of pollutants being emitted into the atmosphere. As a result, one of the foremost challenges confronting towns, cities, regions and transportation providers is the reduction of congestion. Perhaps more importantly, the increasing cost of oil and our current dependence on it make even clearer the need for the introduction of greater efficiency, better management, more sustainable practices, and differential pricing in transportation system planning. There is an even greater expectation that congestion pricing will be a new source of funds to maintain existing and construct new infrastructure.
One strategy that has been introduced in the last several decades to address these concerns is "congestion pricing" or "value pricing." In short, congestion pricing is the practice of charging drivers to use a specific lane or enter a designated area, such as central London. The idea is to reduce demand, and thus the number of cars competing for space on the road, by making more explicit the costs of adding an additional driver to the lane or area. A refinement of this strategy is to vary the price to reflect demand--in many cases, the price is higher during peak travel periods and lower at other times of the day. The result is freer-flowing travel for those drivers willing to pay the toll.
The key objective of this project was to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of public perceptions and acceptability of potential congestion-pricing implementation and deployment strategies for the metropolitan Atlanta area, in order to help guide GDOT in the siting, evaluation, and implementation of future pricing strategies. The project included consideration of new technologies to be used in implementing congestion-pricing schemes, as well as potential consumer objections to congestion pricing and a summary of the most significant inputs to models or efforts to forecast consumer responses to pricing programs. The research effort will provide a comprehensive examination of public perceptions and preferences in regard to the suitability of potential pricing applications in metropolitan Atlanta. The project results include recommendations of strategies to implement congestion pricing, as well as results from an emissions modeling framework and congestion pricing analysis.
To accomplish this objective, there were five tasks involved in this project: I. Literature Review Conduct a review of existing literature related to public acceptance of previous congestion-pricing programs around the US, particularly focusing on: the I-10 Katy Freeway in Texas; the express lanes on I-15 near San Diego, California; State Route 91 near

Page 1 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

Riverside, California; the MNPASS program in the greater Minneapolis area, Minnesota; and the E-470, a limited-access toll highway in Denver, Colorado. II. Expert Panel and Survey Conduct a survey of transportation professionals who have implemented congestion pricing projects or programs. This involved telephone calls with email follow-ups to collect information from states and regions that have studied and/or implemented congestion-pricing strategies. In addition, a group of eight experts (practitioners and implementers) came to Atlanta for two days to solicit their advice and experience in implementing value pricing initiatives. III. Demographic/Travel Profiles Create a socio-demographic profile of a corridor-specific sub-area in the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, as identified by GDOT and the project investigators [I-85 North corridor]. IV. Focus Groups A series of focus groups were assembled to identify and measure the attitudes, perceptions, preferences and general response to a variety of congestion pricing programs and to specific examples of pricing projects. The focus-group process included an examination of different pricing technologies, toll collection methods, financing and pricing preferences (willingness to pay), and expectations and benefits associated with pricing programs. V. Emissions Modeling Assessment Framework The team developed an emissions modeling assessment framework and congestion pricing monitoring plan that can be implemented by GDOT and ARC in projecting the emission impacts of congestion pricing and value pricing of transportation projects and assessing actual impacts over time.
This executive summary provides a brief overview of the findings of each of the tasks listed above.

Section I: Literature Review
The literature review focused on new congestion-pricing technologies, general literature as to public acceptance of congestion pricing, the case studies of congestion-pricing programs previously implemented in the United States, and examples of congestion pricing outside the United States.
Congestion Pricing Technologies
New technologies now make it considerably easier to establish and enforce a congestion-pricing mechanism, whether the facility is limited to one lane or established as a cordon. The most widely-used new technologies include electronic toll collection via transponders located in individual cars. Technologies, such as license-plate reading, automatic vehicle occupancy detection, and enforcement gantry lights, are also being developed to assist in enforcement. Such technologies allow for the

Page 2 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

separation of a congestion-priced lane's users into those who do not have to pay the toll (e.g. a vehicle with two or three people inside) and those who do. Audiences for electronic toll collection and transponder use have often responded favorably and adapted to using the new technology. However, there may be privacy concerns with some of the enforcement technology; users may react negatively to having their license plate read or their picture taken by a digital camera trying to determine occupancy.
Public Acceptance
Congestion pricing is still relatively new in the United States, and in some past cases has proven politically unpopular. While there is some evidence that American audiences are becoming slightly more comfortable with the idea of congestion pricing, the idea has not yet been matter-of-factly accepted. Familiarity seems to lead to more positive responses: people who have used a congestion-pricing facility or a toll lane before seem to react more positively to the idea of a congestion-pricing facility than do those who have not. But potential users may react negatively if they believe that a "free" facility is being taken away from them. Turning an HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lane into an HOT (high-occupancy toll) lane may be more acceptable to the majority of users, but it may provoke opposition from existing HOV users. Users may also cite equity as a concern, fearing that a congestion-free drive will be a privilege limited only to those who can afford it. All of these things can lead to difficulty in generating political support for projects.
There are certain things a public agency can do to mitigate these concerns. First, especially if this is the first proposed congestion-pricing facility in a region, prepare a detailed and comprehensive outreach program. Keep potential users informed as to the features and predicted consequences of the facility, and be willing to adjust the proposal based on their concerns. Second, anticipate heightened scrutiny in some areas, such as the potential equity issues and the planned destination of the resulting revenue. Finally, be able to explain, clearly and memorably, that a congestion-pricing facility will bring benefits to the surrounding area; be able to say what those benefits might be, and why they are worth incurring the costs of a new project.
Case Studies
To explore congestion-pricing experiences in the United States, five facilities that have applied different implementation approaches and experienced varying degrees of public acceptance, have been selected for review. The oldest, State Route 91 (SR-91) in Orange County, California, which was opened in 1995, has relieved congestion in a high-trafficked area but came under public opposition as a result of the way the public-private financing and ownership of the facility was handled. Both the Houston QuickRide facility and the facility on Interstate 25 outside Denver, Colorado, were designed to take advantage of excess capacity on existing HOV lanes. The Express Lanes on Interstate 15 outside San Diego were

Page 3 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

originally conceived to raise money for transit, rather than to relieve congestion. The MnPASS facility to the west of Minneapolis/St. Paul has relieved congestion for suburban commuters into the city. It is clear that there is no set formula for a congestion-pricing facility. However, we can note some similarities between the five cases. All five have barrier-separated sections; four have reversible sections. Four of the five are able to balance HOVs and SOVs in the same lane; while enforcement has been a difficulty, it should be recognized that a congestion-priced lane can accommodate both carpoolers and single drivers. We can tentatively conclude that (with the exception of SR-91, which had the additional variable of a prominent public-private partnership coming under fire) all show a trend of consumer acceptance of the congestion-priced facility rising after it opened. This is true whether or not SOVs (single-occupancy vehicles) have been allowed to use the facility. Thus, it may be that the most difficult obstacles for a congestion-pricing project are faced before implementation begins.
Other Strategies
Other congestion-pricing projects are currently being considered in cities both inside and outside the United States. London, Singapore, and Trondheim, Norway have cordon-pricing schemes to price access to the central city. The 38-mile-long, non-barrier- separated HOT facility in Salt Lake City is the most recent and the longest addition to the list of U.S. HOT lanes. Both the northeast United States and Toronto have portions of toll lanes with variable pricing and transponders in use.
In contrast to the five case studies, the congestion-pricing projects in this section show a greater variety of congestion-pricing strategies, including the use of cordons, variable tolls, and monthly vehicle tags, and take different approaches to technology and enforcement. Together, they demonstrate that while congestion pricing remains a politically sensitive issue, there are now more options than ever for putting together a congestion-pricing project.

Section II: Expert Panel and Survey
To enhance the information gathered from the literature review and case study sections of this project, a survey of transportation professionals who have implemented congestion pricing projects or programs was conducted. This task involved two parts: an intensive, two-day expert panel session, and telephone interviews with persons that have been involved at different levels of congestion pricing projects around the country. The goal of this phase of the project was to gather information on public responses to congestion pricing, techniques and policies, obstacles to implementing a congestion-pricing program, and the effects, if any, of congestion pricing on land use.

These tasks facilitated the collection of information from states and regions that have studied and/or implemented congestion pricing strategies. For the first of these tasks, a group of five experts was

Page 4 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

brought to Atlanta for two days. During the panel sessions, the experts were asked to describe their experience with implementing congestion pricing in their region. Then, the experts were asked to provide practical advice as to how to implement value pricing initiatives such as congestion pricing in our region. These experts were public officials and transportation experts who have on-the-ground experience with implementing the congestion-pricing schemes and related technologies featured in the five case studies in the literature review chapter of this report.
Panel attendees included Mark Burris (Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M, representing Houston QuickRide, I-10, and US 290), Adeel Lari (Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, representing MnPASS, I-394), Ellen Lee (Orange County Transportation Authority [OCTA], representing SR-91 express lanes), Stacey Stegman (Colorado DOT, representing I25/US-36), and Heather Werdick (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG], representing I-15 express lanes).
Each of these topic areas was the focus of a separate session of the expert panel. The following section provides a summary of the expert panel discussions by project. These discussions resulted in the following general operations recommendations, as well as more specific recommendations that are covered in the full chapter.
Implement congestion pricing o The panel members all indicated that their respective pricing systems are working well and are effective in reducing traffic congestion (although the Houston systems are really considered small scale operations at present)
Don't worry about whether the facility is making money o Keep in mind that revenues from HOT and toll systems "are a drop in the bucket" with respect to the overall costs of constructing a corridor o The revenue focus in most areas is on covering marginal costs o Most regions do not care whether any excess funds are generated because the goal is to reduce congestion at a cost significantly lower than building new capacity
Incorporate a monthly fee for participating in a priced lane system o The fee has been found to be a reasonable approach to raising general operating revenues enough to pay for the administrative overhead of operations (though the revenues are generally small)
Require that all vehicles using the HOT or toll facility be equipped with transponders o A variety of transponder technologies are available for deployment and all can be implemented at reasonable cost o Colorado is even requiring the exempt clean vehicles to be transponder equipped so that impacts can be tracked

Page 5 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

Consider the use of new, less expensive, battery-less paper tag transponder technologies o However, Houston has indicated that even though they are switching to the lower cost paper tags, the region is looking forward to deploying smart cards to fully integrated parking, transit, and HOT lane payment technologies
Consider moving directly to smart card technologies to fully integrate payment parking, transit, and tolling systems throughout the region o If economically feasible, the region can skip deployment of the battery-less technologies and leap frog ahead of other regions
Consider using higher-end interactive transponder systems, such as the system deployed by MnPASS o The transponder system deployed by MnPASS allow a write function to the RFID and is preferable from a data collection and enforcement standpoint (recommended by MnPASS)
Ensure that technologies are interoperable throughout the state o Consider ensuring that technologies are interoperable throughout the greater southeastern region
Rather than simply adopting a transponder technology already deployed elsewhere, perform a full 20-year life-cycle cost analysis of hardware tradeoffs before selecting a technology o Economic analyses should include the cost of transponder replacement, if batterypowered RFID technology is deployed. The Houston RFID tags are no longer functional, due to the age of the battery systems, which must be refreshed every five years
Develop a complete micro-simulation model for each pricing corridor, in its entirety o Use of a calibrated simulation model is highly recommended for: evaluating alternative designs and predicting system performance response to operational changes o More importantly, simulation modeling results and graphic presentations are needed for use in public meetings in to describe system performance and benefits
Conduct local traffic impact studies o Traffic impact studies should be a major element of the project to assure local residents that the system will not impact local traffic at the endpoints
Use a simulation model to assess potential impacts that each priced facility will have on the traffic volumes of non-priced connecting freeways
Ensure that subsequent system improvements on parallel facilities do not affect the demand for and revenues from HOT facilities after they are implemented o In the case of I-85, implementation of a BRT on Buford Highway could potentially affect I-85 HOT revenues, so both projects should be analyzed concurrently

Page 6 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

Ensure that there is sufficient monitoring in place to assess the benefits of the implemented systems (providing data to support the implementation of new facilities) o ATMS machine vision system should monitor before and after traffic volumes, densities, and speeds to document congestion reduction benefits o Longitudinal household surveys should be conducted of participants (tollway users, general purpose lane users, express bus riders, and telecommuters) before and after implementation o Traffic safety studies should examine before and after crash rates
Perform an engineering operations review of the MnPASS system
Atlanta design and operations engineers should review how the MnPASS system employs ramp meters within the MnPASS system and determine whether the same linkages should be developed in the Atlanta region.

Section III: Demographic/Travel Profiles
The project included gathering demographic and travel data by capturing license-plate information on major Atlanta highways. In addition to providing a set of "focus" blockgroups for use in targeting potential Commute Atlanta congestion-pricing study participants, the license plate data collected from overpasses provided direct insight on rush hour highway commuters at an unprecedented scale. Using a GIS environment, typical highway commutersheds and associated census data observations were generated. This allowed the study group to come to some conclusions about the demographics and travel patterns of potential users of a congestion-pricing program.
In general, based upon census data analysis and observation frequency, the observed morning rush hour highway commuters were less likely to carpool, take public transportation, or utilize other non-SOV modes than the average resident of the same blockgroup. They were more likely to work at home and had incomes that were on average 15% higher. The longer travel times and high incomes observed in the study indicate that people may be willing to travel further for more prosperous job opportunities. However, it is also possible that multi-income households yield compromises in household location decisions, resulting in longer commutes for one or both workers.
When a highway at rush hour is the route of choice, environmental equity considerations can arise due to the effects of congestion on air quality in the immediate surrounding areas. These externalities can be at least partially mitigated through the use of toll or other managed lanes during congested periods, which would encourage faster travel speeds and thus decrease the vehicle-based emissions of most primary pollutants. Since rush-hour commuters have a greater household income level than the general populace,

Page 7 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

imposing a fee for usage of particular high-capacity roads may amount to progressive taxation, potentially dampening some concerns about the effects of managed lanes on vertical (income) equity. The combination of higher incomes and longer commute times may lead to an increased willingness-to-pay for managed lane facilities with guaranteed travel time savings.

Section IV: Focus Groups
Nineteen focus groups were assembled to identify and measure the attitudes, perceptions, preferences and general response to a variety of congestion pricing programs and to specific examples of pricing projects in the Atlanta area. This included an examination of different pricing technologies, toll collection methods, financing and pricing preferences (willingness to pay), and expectations and benefits associated with pricing programs. In addition, the focus group participants were evaluated as to their current familiarity with congestion-pricing technologies and their feelings thereon. Special consideration was given to potential public objections to congestion pricing--for example, if users were to consider congestion pricing "double taxation" or regard toll lanes as "Lexus lanes" enjoyed only by the wealthy.
The groups consisted of 8-12 participants and one facilitator for a 90-minute discussion and were conducted at a professional facility. Representatives of the Georgia Tech team observed the groups from behind a one-way mirror and utilized audio and visual recording. Focus group participants were given information on three types of managed lanes (high occupancy toll [HOT], variable priced high occupancy toll [VHOT], and express lanes) and were presented with several questions including what they like or do not like about the types of managed lanes and under which conditions they would be likely to use the managed lanes.
Preliminary analysis of the focus groups responses suggests that public attitudes towards congestion pricing programs in Metropolitan Atlanta are similar to those seen in other areas of the United States. Respondents were generally open to listening to solutions that may reduce congestion. There was a general distrust of the ability of governmental agencies to provide guaranteed speeds or to properly manage the facilities or the proceeds from the tolls. There were also concerns about lanes being "taken away" from general use and congestion pricing amounting to "double-dipping" by the government since fuel taxes are already being used for road-building. Additionally, concerns about the fairness of congestion pricing programs were articulated.
A majority of participants indicated a willingness to use a managed-lane facility, with HOT lanes being the most likely to be used. Willingness to use was higher among those participants who were familiar with existing managed-lane facilities and technologies, such as the HOV lanes or the Georgia-400 CruiseCard program. While the participants generally believed that managed lanes were generally fair and equitable,

Page 8 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

there were some concerns raised about those who do not have the ability or flexibility to adjust commute times and low-income users.
When asked what attributes they liked about HOT lanes, respondents commented on guaranteed speeds, the ability of SOV to pay to use the facility, and the overall reduction of congestion on both the HOT and general purpose (GP) lanes. Dislikes of the HOT lane concept included a lack of trust that the guaranteed speed will be provided, concerns about accidents in the HOT lane, worries about the toll being in effect double taxation, and concerns about construction costs. When asked what attributes they liked about VHOT lanes, respondents liked the market-driven nature of the concept, the possibilities for higher congestion relief, the increased flexibility, and the possibility for discounted toll prices at low congestion or off-peak hours. The dislikes of the VHOT concept included concerns about the complexity of implementing and utilizing a variable pricing scheme, difficulties that variation in tolls would have on [personal] travel expense budgeting, the potential for the tolls to be regressive (lower income drivers may not have the flexibility to avoid high toll times), and a distrust in the government's ability to accurately verify vehicle speeds.
With regards to express lanes, respondents stated that the lanes would be beneficial for drivers with long commutes, increase safety due to a minimization of weaving into and out of the lane, and provide a good alternative for non-commuting vehicles driving from one side of town to the other without the need to stop. The dislikes of express lanes include concerns about the effect of breakdowns or accidents in the lane, the lack of convenience due to the limited number of access and egress point, and the potential confusion during the implementation phase and for out-of-town drivers.
The results from these focus groups contain much valuable information that will lead to a more thorough understanding of public attitudes towards and willingness to accept different congestion pricing facilities.
Section V: Emissions Modeling Assessment Framework
Transportation planners are required to evaluate the potential air quality impacts of major federal transportation projects. Unfortunately, the complicated processes involve the use of multiple models, making impact analyses difficult and time-consuming to perform for local projects. A single tool designed to automate modeling routines would allow policy makers to more readily modify appropriate model input variables for proposed projects would significantly improve the process of undertaking transportation and air quality conformity analysis in non-attainment areas. These same modeling tools could also be used in project-level air quality impact analysis to evaluate the comparative downwind pollutant concentration impacts of project alternatives for environmental impact assessment documents for environmental

Page 9 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

assessments. Eventually, automation tools could allow policy analysts to run all required models in background and assess the impacts of a wide variety of infrastructure development on an ongoing basis.
The spatial data components of the modeling tool allows users to specify the transportation link coordinates of the network affected by any proposed transportation project or policy as input to the modeling tool. Traffic volume and related data can be integrated from the regional travel demand model (TDM), any traffic simulation model, or from direct observational measurements. The links for the selected roadway system and their associated link IDs can be pulled from the regional travel demand model or from the CORSIM or VisSim simulation models developed for a freeway or arterial corridor. Subfleet composition data and average speed data by facility type are used in the emission rate lookup and composite emission rate development processes of the MOBILE-Matrix element.
The MOBILE-Matrix component of the modeling tool uses a multi-step process to arrive at a composite emission rate for each roadway link and then calculates mass emissions by pollutant for each modeled transportation link. The MOBILE-Matrix modules are based upon previous work performed by members of the research team (Guensler, et al., 2004). The MOBILE-Matrix emission rate elements of the modeling toolkit begin with the creation of a multi-dimensional database of baseline emission rates for the Atlanta region. Thousands of MOBILE6.2 emission rate modeling runs are employed to develop baseline emission rate matrices. Each modeling run incorporates standardized environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, and average barometric pressure) for winter or summer scenarios of interest, along with standardized input parameters to represent regional inspection and maintenance and fuels programs. The resulting MOBILE-Matrix emission rate matrices are organized by calendar year, summer or winter scenario, facility type, on road vehicle speed, and ambient temperature. Each sub-matrix contains emission rates by vehicle class and model year. With the multi-dimensional matrix complete, composite roadway emission rates for any calendar year, facility type, on road vehicle speed, temperature, summer or winter scenario, vehicle class distribution, and model year distribution are developed through a simple mathematical process. Hence, emission rate changes for any project that affects fleet composition or on road operating conditions can be readily predicted using this modeling tool. Composite emission rates for CO, PM2.5, PM10, NOx, and HC are multiplied by daily or hourly traffic volumes to predict daily or hourly mass emissions from the facility for mass emissions comparison or emissions budget testing. Coupled with projections of changes in VMT from the travel demand or traffic simulation model, or from direct observation, the net emissions and emissions changes from a facility can be calculated.

Page 10 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

Conclusion
The biggest challenges to a congestion-pricing project, in terms of public acceptance, are familiarizing the public with the tolling mechanism and explaining the potential benefits, as opposed to the more evident costs. However, in most cases, public acceptance has increased once the congestion-pricing project has been implemented and shown to function smoothly. A congestion-pricing project in metropolitan Atlanta would face similar obstacles. There may also be some public resentment based on distrust of state government and the perception that residents are being asked to pay for a previously "free" service. Furthermore, because of Atlanta's history of racial inequalities, equity questions might be even more politically volatile than they would be in another city. Any congestion-pricing project would need to be carried out with awareness of these issues and a wellstructured public information campaign with plenty of opportunities for public input and interaction with decision-makers.
Transportation planners and programmers in the Metropolitan Atlanta area face many of the same issues and public perceptions that have been seen in areas that have successfully implemented congestion pricing facilities throughout the United States. The work done during the planning and implementation stages of these projects will provide valuable guidance as the Metropolitan Atlanta area pursues congestion pricing strategies. Following is a list of preliminary findings that have arisen from this study.

Findings:
It is important to start `messaging' about the proposed implementation early in the process. o One of the most important messages is that the HOT system provides choice for the users: 1) you can choose to pay and use the system, 2) you can choose not to pay and use the existing system, or 3) you can choose to use the improved transit service that is paid for by the system. o The user community needs to understand that the implementation of user fees lessens the reliance on gas taxes. o Emphasize that managed lanes are not a short-term "band-aid," but one tool in a long term comprehensive plan. o A single consistent message is not critical to the success of HOT lane and toll projects; develop different messages for different stakeholders. o HOT lanes are not a major revenue source and are barely able to pay for themselves, so the major focus should be on the fact that the HOT lanes ensure that the revenues being spent on the system are returned directly to the corridor from which they are generated,

Page 11 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary

o Outreach should also focus on showing the public that the HOT lane is carrying more people/lane/hr that the general purpose lanes. They increase overall capacity.
Potential negative impacts of road pricing on low-income households has not turned out to be as significant an issue as was originally envisioned in public policy papers: o Focus groups and observation data have indicated that although the low-income population uses the toll lanes less frequently than higher income populations, the low-income population benefits significantly from the provision of the toll lanes. o Low-income populations are generally in favor of implementing HOT lanes because they have a need to use these lanes for specific types of trips and are willing to pay the costs to save time under certain conditions. o None of the HOT systems have implemented any low-income adjustments to tolls as there has been no expressed need for such adjustments; hence, the Atlanta system does not need to provide low-income toll adjustments.
The transportation agency should not necessarily be the `face' for HOT or toll project implementation; it is important to ensure that the individuals carrying the project message have clout with the user community
Finding local champions for the projects is a critical element of success (e.g. elected or appointed local officials at the county or city level) o A seminar for local government officials on the benefits of HOT lanes might be a good venue for developing local champions.
The research in this study suggests that community representatives need to be involved early in the process of developing any HOT system. However, in addition to educating influential decision makers, it is also critical that regions implementing pricing strategies conduct public outreach campaigns. Such campaigns can include direct mail contact, interaction with stakeholders, and interaction with the print, radio, and television media.
The research conducted for this project suggests that public acceptance for congestion pricing programs is higher after project implementation than in hypothetical scenarios. The hypothetical scenarios presented to the study focus groups were generally well accepted. It can be expected that using the guidance of previously successful programs around the U.S. that Metropolitan Atlanta transportation planners, programmers, and policy makers can generate public support for congestion pricing initiatives in the Atlanta area.

Page 12 of 12

Congestion Pricing Response: Executive Summary