Value Pricing Projects: Public Involvement & Equity Issues

1. Value Pricing Projects:Public Involvement & Equity Issues K. Lynn Berry Resource Center Environment TST

2. 1994 • “The reasons for rejection of congestion pricing in the past have not changed. Any shift from the current system of financing and using the transportation system toward more marketlike mechanisms can be expected to engender public and political resistance” • Committee for Study on Urban Transportation Congestion Pricing

3. 2006 DOT initiatives • 59 pricing projects reported in 1st Q 2006 • Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) Office • Value Pricing Pilot Program • funded at $59 million through 2009 • Tolling and Pricing Team • Special Experimental Project No. 15 (known colloquially as SEP-15) • "Open Roads" pilot program

4. 2006: Secretary Mineta Says: • “It is time to take advantage of the private sector’s flexibility, innovation, creativity, expertise and access to capital." • May 24, 2006 letter to Thomas E. Petri, Chairman of the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee

5. SAFETEA-LU provisions • Private Activity Bonds • Expanded tolling authority • Lowered eligibility threshold for TIFIA loans

6. Environmental Defense Agrees

7. What Role For Road Pricing? • Managing traffic congestion, traffic growth, and pollution • Financing road system expansion, operations, mitigation of adverse impacts • Financing transit, para-transit, walking, biking • Supporting and financing growth management

8. Getting Better Transportation Projects Faster? • Incorporate pricing with smart growth, better transit in plans and projects • Avoid or mitigate secondary induced, cumulative impacts • Involve the public

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

10. Pricing Projects • Less about direct impacts • More about access, public uncertainty, equity

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

12. Equity Analysis Findings • Horizontal equity1 increased • User pays; those who benefit the most pay the most • Vertical equity2 achieved by off-setting benefits to low-income drivers • transit options, revenue rebates, etc. • Tolls no more regressive than gas tax 1fairness among individuals or groups with similar resources and needs 2fairness among individuals or groups with different resources and needs

13. Equity Analysis Findings • Financial burden will depend on • the frequency and duration of roadway usage • whether there are travel alternatives to the tolled facility • Burden may be expected to decline over time if • program is predictably and gradually implemented • users have time to adjust to the new prices • users make different choices about locations in which to live and work. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2005) TDM Encyclopedia

14. Equity Analysis FindingsI-15, San Diego • There is a greater proportion of higher income drivers (e.g. households with annual incomes over $80,000) in the HOT lanes than in the un-tolled lanes. • Low income drivers use the HOT lanes, but not as much as the un-tolled lanes. Drivers with household incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 a year made up 3% of FasTrak users, and 10% of drivers in the free lanes. • There is broad public support of the HOT lane program Supernak, Janusz C. (2004) http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm

15. Equity Analysis FindingsSR-91, Orange County • Drivers with higher incomes use the lanes for a greater proportion of their trips • some low income persons are certainly among the frequent users • No income group seems to consider it worthwhile to use the tolled lanes for every trip • most users use them infrequently, when they perceive the greatest benefit Sullivan, Edward. 2004 http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm

16. Equity Analysis Findings Katy (I-10) Freeway in Houston, TX • Enrollees of the QuickRide have higher incomes, and were younger, than drivers who did not enroll. • The price/means of enrollment may prohibit some individuals with lower incomes from participating. Burris, Mark and Robert L. Hannay. 2003. Equity Analysis Of The Houston Quickride Project. Paper Submitted for TRB

17. Equity Analysis Findings • Project operational details can be designed to improve equity • Transponder distribution • Credit card only vs. cash deposits • Availability of lower up-front costs • 27% of US households do not have a credit card at all • 1 in 10 adults in the US does not have a bank account on which to draw a check or establish automatic transponder replenishment. Emily Parknay, “Environmental Justice Issues Related to Transponder Ownership and Road Pricing”. TRB 2005 CD-ROM

18. Addressing Equity • Commonly utilized strategies for pricing projects • revenue expenditures; • equity analysis; • public involvement; and • pilot projects Ranked by “direct action”

19. Addressing Equity • Jurisdictions Grouped • The Actors • The Deliberators

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

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

22. Characteristics Analyzed

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

24. State Level Variables

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

26. I-394 Express LanesCommunity Task Force • 22-person group of leaders and citizens appointed by the Governor and Lt. Governor and communities • Bi-partisan and diverse make-up, local representatives • Reviewed express lane issues • Prices, access, enforcement, hours of operation, etc. • Provided input to Mn/DOT • Also sought input from interested people and groups • Open Houses, Focus Groups, Community Council presentations

27. But that was only after . . . • a “tumultuous history with other road pricing project proposals”. • a “decade of public discussion and political debate” • a Citizen’s Jury1 process revealed that the “public overwhelmingly rejected the notion” • the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs • “carried out a research, education, and communications strategy for value pricing during 2002 and 2003 to help generate interest and support” A Value Pricing Education and Outreach Model: The I-394 MnPASS Community Task Force TRB Paper No. 06-2250 By Kenneth R. Buckeye and Lee W. Munnich, Jr.

28. Task Force Model Was Key • Traditional public involvement models fall short • limited interaction • too little opportunity to respond and integrate public input • The process Mn/DOT pursued required sharing control of project details and decisions A Value Pricing Education and Outreach Model: The I-394 MnPASS Community Task Force TRB Paper No. 06-2250 By Kenneth R. Buckeye and Lee W. Munnich, Jr.

29. Other Lessons Learned • Top-Level Champions are Helpful • Governor used highly visible platform to thoroughly explain the issue to skeptical stakeholders and citizens. • “Grasstops” Coalition Is a Prerequisite • Leaders built a peer-to-peer coalition • Coalition Requires Constant Maintenance • Required tending by individuals with experience in managing diverse public policy–oriented coalitions. Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned by Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1932, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.

30. Other Lessons Learned • Preparation Must Precede Promotion • Every time they answered a question “we don’t know yet,” public skepticism about the feasibility of the proposal grew. • No Question Goes Unanswered • “An accusation unanswered can quickly become an accusation believed.” • Customize Messages • A one-size-fits-all message didn’t work Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned by Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1932, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.

31. Other Lessons Learned • Show, Don’t Just Tell • even people who are well briefed on the concept of value pricing have a difficult time fully understanding it • videotape of underutilized local HOV lanes and successful HOT lanes in other parts of the country • In meetings, actual transponders were often passed out to help people see and feel how electronic tolling would work. Value Pricing and Public Outreach Minnesota’s Lessons Learned by Lee W. Munnich, Jr., and Joseph D. Loveland Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1932, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 164–168.