Value Pricing Pilot Program: Lessons Learned – Appendix B

• Located on 8-mile (13-kilometer) two reversible lanes in the freeway median between the junction of I‑15/State Route (SR) 163 south end and I‑15/SR 56 junction north end.  The project converted underutilized HOV lanes to HOT lanes; allowing solo drivers to “buy in” to the HOV lanes.  The project currently is being expanded to 28-mile managed lane system with moveable barriers and reversible lanes a.m. to p.m. peaks.
• Phase I started in 1996 using paper windshield permit test system (ExpressPass); go to electronic toll in 1997; limited to 500 monthly permits ($50) at start, then 1,000 monthly permits ($70).
• Phase II began in March 1998, with per-trip fee adjusted dynamically based on time of day and traffic levels ($0.50 to $4 per trip, up to $8 maximum).
  At beginning of Phase II, there were 1,497 FasTrakTM transponder accounts, by end of 1999, there were 11,091 transponder accounts.  The number has now crossed 20,000.  This was the first use of dynamic pricing in the World.
• SANDAG MPO is lead agency; CHP enforces; Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) provides transit; private consultants for planning, technical assistance, provision/management of electronic tolls, violation enforcement system, and customer services.
• Project Management Team (PMT):  SANDAG, Caltrans, FHWA, FTA, CHP, MTDB, Mayor’s representative, City of Poway, AAA; advises project.
• The SOV/FasTrak-only lane at the toll zone was removed in July 1999 due to customer complaints about difficult merge conditions in/out of third lane.
  Tolls were lowered in the peak shoulders on August 31, 1998, to encourage more off-peak and less peak use.
• The expansion of an alternate route (SR 56) reduced I‑15 corridor demand, resulting in less SOV/FasTrak usage of the I‑15 lanes and corresponding reduced program revenues.  As a result and in response to low overall tolls-per-transponder usage, in March 2007, SANDAG Board assessed new account management fee of $3.50 and $1 per transponder fee, less tolls. The fees are waived if the customer uses the toll lanes during the month on a dollar for dollar basis, so accounts spending >$4.50/mo with 1 tag pay only the toll and no fees.
• The facility was initially open only during peaks on weekdays.  Eventually, due to public demand, hours were extended and weekends added.
• I‑15 HOT lanes are being extended to 20 miles in the median of Interstate 15 (I‑15) between SR 163 and SR 78; plans call for four-lanes in the median, moveable barrier, multiple access points, direct access ramps for buses and eventual bus rapid transit (BRT); pricing to be dynamic based on congestion and distance traveled; new system to open in stages:  first, an 8-mile, 4-lane extension of managed lanes between SR 56/Ted Williams Parkway and Center City Parkway in the City of Escondido; later, 4-mile extension north of Center City Parkway to SR 78; and the widening to four lanes of the existing two-lane reversible lanes between SR 163 and SR 56; BRT through five stations; new tolling system at 41 locations.

• Enabling state legislation requires toll revenues remaining after operational and enforcement costs go to “transit and HOV services”; also limits SANDAG to 3 percent of total revenues for planning and administration.
• Phases I and II revenue:  daily revenues from 5K to 8K from 1999-2001.
• Operation and management of the I‑15 FasTrak program currently costs SANDAG approximately $100,000 per month; about $64,000 per month goes to the toll operator; remaining $36,000 per month for life-cycle costs for minor equipment, transponder replacements, enforcement, other directs.
• $100,000 per month program costs on more than 19,000 accounts implies costs of about $5 per account per month.
• Since 1997, the FasTrak program has provided more than $7 million in funding for transit service in the I‑15 corridor; with recent revenue decline, service could be jeopardized. More recently, I-15 has added an account maintenance fee and transponder fee to cope with declining accounts and revenues apparently due to the opening of an alternate route (SR 56).

• SANDAG Board policy adopted (No. 91-65) test of allowing solo drivers to use facility at variable rates with revenues to increase transit in the corridor.
• State legislation (Assembly Bill 713), authored and sponsored by concept champion Jan Goldsmith, made law in 1994 to permit SOV use of HOV, requiring free-flow of HOVs (LOS C) at all times.
• Environmental Justice requirements (Executive Order 12898) required initial outreach, public involvement across income groups.

• Formed in good part because of champion for concept Mayor (and then Assemblyman) Jan Goldsmith.
• Phase I (1999):  public workshops and postcard mailing did not gain much attention, but no controversy; focus groups helped form project; media coverage generally confined to information versus opinion.
• Phase II (2001):  both print and electronic media coverage “informative, balanced, timely, and accurate” throughout project.
• Continuous information from management (25 marketing events, customer newsletter, hot line) and responsiveness characterize program:  negative comments about the merging into the FasTrak-only lane led to change; CHP increased enforcement after violation complaints; extended hours of operation in response to suggestion.
• As part of developing a 20-mile “managed lanes” extension of the original HOT lane project, as assessment of stakeholders and commuters found strong support for the original program and planned expansion; e.g., a telephone survey of 600 main lane users and 200 transponder-owners found a majority of the respondents expressed approval of the FasTrak program, 92 percent like a time saving option on I‑15 and 84 percent of the respondents said they favored the managed lanes extension.
• Same telephone survey found just 2 percent knew that FasTrak tolls fund transit and most preferred revenues go to maintaining/improving regular or express lanes on I‑15 or all San Diego freeways.

• Phase I began with colored permits to solo drivers (ExpressPass).
• Phase II used windshield-mounted transponders (FasTrak) and began with a third FasTrak-only lane, (AVI) system, including overhead antennae, readers, and vehicle detectors imbedded in the Express Lanes, giving traffic levels in 6-minute increments, level of service and program user information.
• In Phase 1 (1999), start up loop detector equipment failed to operate for 10 percent of the time, AVI equipment not functioning 12 percent of time.
• Managed lanes plans for future will rely on existing transponder and reader radio communications; (HOVs – 2+) to travel free with no transponder required.
• The program has not had automated enforcement capability.  This probably has hindered enforcement and possibly resulted in violations/uncollected revenue.

• Phase I (1999) air quality:  not improved; “increased vehicle speeds resulted in subsequent increases in most pollutants.”
• Phases I and II (2001):  emissions up for both I‑15 and control corridor; 3-5 times more for control (a.m. to p.m. peak, respectively); speculation about possible diversion of some traffic from mixed flow to pay lane as the cause of lower increase on I‑15, but not compelling conclusion as changes in speeds and vehicle types compound picture.
• Phases I and II (2001):  equity issue of possible elitism, effects on the poor and new paying for road use appeared only during the first year of the project and rarely during the second year.
• Phases I and II (2001) I‑15 residents significantly more likely than I‑8 control to say ExpressPass/FasTrak are factors in recent housing decision, but other factors (e.g., school and work proximity) far more important; conclusions less strong due to different demographics between corridors.
• As part of developing a 20-mile “managed lanes” extension of the original HOT lane project, a telephone survey of facility users found 71 percent consider the extension fair to regular lane users (71 percent) and Managed Lane users (75 percent); very few differences in attitudes about the fairness of the lanes found based on ethnicity or income; however, half of respondents said tolling of SOV drivers was unfair double taxation (FasTrak customers less so than other corridor users).

• Baseline situation:  HOV lane beginning in 1988 underutilized:  only 600 vehicles per hour per lane at peak while mixed flow lanes heavily congested.
• Traffic:  significant increase in HOVs; gradual increase in ExpressPass vehicles; better utilization of the facility; LOS C maintained in express lanes; no significant reduction in main lanes (fall 1996 to fall 1997).
• Violations:  significant reduction in SOV violators in ExpressLanes, maybe due to more enforcement and some violators buying passes.
• P&R:  lot utilization steady, but declining on I‑8 corridor (no HOV lane).
• Perceptions of users:  users satisfied with reduction in travel time, more on time arrival, improved safety, while HOVs not negative; survey of businesses perceptions shows most not aware or no opinion about business impact, but those most dependent on corridor more likely say positive impact; stakeholder interviews show positive opinions.

• Use:  across both phases, average daily volume on Express Lanes increased by approximately 125 vehicles per month; “by the end of 1999, the Express Lanes were much better utilized than before the start of the project.”
• Carpools:  HOVs increased during the ExpressPass phase by about 81 vehicles per month, then declined during the FasTrak phase by about 27 vehicles per month; but volumes during FasTrak still were greater than before project (1996); overall, while SOV increased a.m. peak from 1996 to 1999, HOV volume fell; pricing may be responsible, as there was a rise in HOV volume along I‑8 from 1997 to 1999, though differences in demographics and growth between the corridors clouds picture; importantly, Panel Study interviews with HOVs shows an increase in carpooling from spring 1998 to spring 1999, and no change in carpooling between the last panel waves 1998 and 1999; no supporting for lots of FasTrak customers drawn from former carpoolers; and, the majority of carpoolers did not feel adversely impacted by the FasTrak program.
• Impact on mixed flow lanes:  peak volumes “slightly” decreased comparing 1999 to pre-project, 1996, while increased on I‑8 main lanes (no HOV lanes); difference with I‑8 trend is significant, but given noncomparable corridors, not definitive.
• Violations:  “violations higher during the FasTrak phase than during the ExpressPass phase, yet smaller than in pre-project period.”
• Level of service:  (LOS) C was sustained at virtually all times in price lanes.
• Travel time:  from 1997 to 1999, average travel times increased more along I‑15 than along I‑8, perhaps because of stronger commercial and residential development along I‑15; uncertain result.
• Ramp and overall delay:  FasTrak users save about 16 minutes during most congest times avoiding the on-ramp to the main lanes; combining savings at ramps and main lane at worst times, save up to 20 minutes.
• Park-and-Ride:  control corridor (I‑8) has no HOV lane, so comparison not meaningful; but, no significant decline in PAR lot use along I‑15.
• Transit:  bus ridership in the I‑15 corridor increased about nine percent from fall 1996 to fall 1999, compared to 23 percent increase over region, so some overall growth at work; new Inland Breeze main part of increase in corridor, though most riders used another bus prior to the Inland Breeze.
• Perceptions of users, business, stakeholders:  potential elitist character of the project and price concerns appeared only during the first year of the project and rarely during the second year; businesses have slight preference for monthly ExpressPass system allowing unlimited use versus per use FasTrak.

• Traffic study evaluated volumes, modes, speeds, travel times, violations.
• Attitudinal Panel Study surveyed 1,500 individuals every six months from three different commuter groups.
• SDSU was evaluation contractor; collected five waves of data in fall 1997, spring, fall 1998, and spring, fall 1999; pre project data included vehicle class, occupancy, violation data gathered by Wilbur Smith Associates (October 1996); traffic and incident data from Caltrans for 1988-1996.
• Evaluation also assessed possible changes in air quality, cost of delay, business impacts, bus ridership, land use, park-and-ride lot occupancy, public acceptance, media response, marketing and institutional issues.
• I‑8 corridor used as control gives added but not definitive confidence to conclusions; I‑8 has no carpool lanes, carries less traffic than I‑15, has better traffic conditions; commuters are lower socioeconomic and more balanced gender makeup; development patterns also are different.
• Business impacts measured by telephone (I‑15, I‑8, downtown compared) subject to small sample and low response rate; no attempt to examine tax revenues.

• A regional study of the feasibility of HOT lanes in Denver concluded that the I‑25/‌U.S. 36 corridor was the most feasible location for a pilot demonstration of HOT lanes.
• The section of interstate south of U.S. 36 to Downtown Denver currently serves nearly 240,000 vehicles a day under heavily congested conditions.
  Opened in June 2006, the Downtown Express HOT lanes, consists of a two-lane barrier-separated reversible facility in the median of I‑25 between downtown Denver and 70th Avenue (a distance of 6.6 miles), and extends further on U.S. 36 to Pecos Street for a total distance of 7.0 miles.
• Lanes are open to southbound traffic from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and by northbound traffic from 12 noon to 3:00 a.m.
• The HOT lanes are controlled access and electronic tolling is administered at a single toll collection zone in the 7-mile stretch.  At this point HOV and SOV vehicles must separate into marked lanes to declare their eligibility.  Buses may use either lane.
• Planning, implementation and construction 2001-2005, Operation, study and evaluation period 2006-2010.

• Total project cost was estimated at $9.0 million.  VPPP funding for FY 2002 ($1,721,526) and FY 2003 ($1,078,474) was awarded for implementation of the project.
• Toll rates are not dynamically set but are pre-scheduled and vary by time of day and are posted on “static” signs in advance of the entrance to the lanes.

I‑25 Time-of-Day HOT Fee Structure

• Vehicles with four or more axles must pay a flat fee of $18 in addition to the base toll rate.
• September 2007 revenues increased with revenue from tolls totaling $188,982 and revenue from fees and fines collected equaling $33,779.  Total monthly revenues, including tolls, fees, and fines were $222,762.
• The first six months of operations in 2006 yielded approximately $650,000 in toll revenues and $330,000 in revenues from fees and fines.  Revenue exceeded expectations and revised estimates of first year toll revenues are between $1.25 million and $1.5 million and revenues from violation fees and fines will approach $600,000.

• Colorado State Statute 42-4-1012, adopted in the 1999 Legislative session, required the Colorado Department of Transportation to convert an existing HOV lane to a HOT lane.
• HOT lane excess revenues are permitted, under state law, to be designated to transportation improvements in the corridor, including transit, vanpool, and carpool services.
• In 2002, the Colorado General Assembly passed legislation creating the Colorado Tolling Enterprise (CTE), a government-owned, nonprofit business operating within, and as a division of CDOT.  The Transportation Commission serves as the Tolling Enterprise Board.  The purpose of the CTE is to finance, construct, operate, regulate and maintain a system of toll highways in Colorado.

• CDOT’s project team completed an extensive outreach and informational campaign to increase public knowledge about HOT lanes on I‑25.  Among other activities they, conducted interviews with business owners, employers, and commuters in the Denver-area; completed two-meeting panels with 5 focus groups; conducted public meetings with north and northwest Denver area residents; held conversations with the public in open houses; conducted high-visibility intercept open houses in public areas; and completed a stated-preference telephone survey of 350 area residents.
• Public opinion research found that:
  • Support for HOT lanes is greater in 2004 than it was in 2000.  In the CDOT Value Express Lanes Feasibility Study conducted from June 1999 through April 2001, there was very little interest or support for HOT Lanes.  In 2004, both interest and support was strong due to the perceived decline in regional transportation funding and the possibility of limited funding in the future.
  • Issues related to income and equity were not as pronounced as anticipated, Out of 21 interviews with opinion setters, only one was completely opposed to the implementation of HOT Lanes.  Other respondents had reservations or concerns but were not opposed to them.
  • Public opinion can be favorably affected when individuals are informed on means of avoiding tolls by carpooling or riding the bus.
  • HOT lanes were generally viewed as an interim solution that is only one component of a regional multimodal transportation system.  Respondents saw the I‑25 HOT Lanes project as a demonstrable opportunity to develop clear guidelines for how HOV lanes are to be evaluated and revised over time.  It was important to respondents to never lose sight that the purpose of HOV lanes is to promote carpool, vanpool, and transit use.

• System utilizes EXpressToll transponder that is compatible with existing tolling facilities on E-470 and the Northwest Parkway.  Before opening of the I‑25 HOT lanes Colorado had over 381,500 EXpressToll transponders in use.
• An overhead array interacts with a transponder that is placed on the windshield of the car; the backend technology then uses this information to assess the toll to the user’s account.
• Vehicles without a transponder are identified with license plate photographs and mailed a fine of $70.

• Public outreach and statistical analysis conducted during the Value Express Lanes Study did not reveal any particular concerns regarding equity or other social impacts.
• The pilot program for I‑25 is expected to continue to investigate the social and economic effects of value pricing upon the corridor’s employment and residential communities as the program evolves over time.

• Approximately one-third of the vehicles traveling in the Express Lanes are toll-paying customers.
• By September of 2007 (10 months from opening), approximately 95,000 total vehicles per month were paying to travel in the I‑25 Express Lanes.
• Preliminary estimates indicate that between 10 to 15 percent of all daily person trips in the 7-mile section occur in the Express Lanes, at full highway speeds, while the adjacent general-purpose lanes experience stop-and-go congestion during the peak periods.
• Express bus service utilizing the HOT lanes was on-time 97 percent of the time in September 2007, alleviating concerns that tolled vehicles would degrade transit level of service.
• HOT lane toll and HOV violations have increased since implementation, with increases in enforcement activities and stops by Colorado State Highway Patrol.

• Comprehensive evaluation is focusing on traffic and travel impacts, costs and revenue yields and operational issues.
• Evaluation is also assessing possible changes in air quality, cost of delay, business impacts, bus ridership, land use, park-and-ride lot occupancy, public acceptance, media response, marketing and institutional issues. 

• Minnesota’s High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes were created on I‑394 through conversion of existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.  The HOT lanes are dynamically priced and remain free to buses, HOVs and motorcyclists during peak hours, and are free to all users during off-peak periods.
• The MnPASS project goals are to improve the free flow speeds for transit and carpools in the HOT lanes, to improve highway facilities and transit service in corridor, to employ electronic toll collection using transponders and readers, and to pilot new concepts such as dynamic pricing and in-vehicle electronic enforcement.
• Beginning in May 2005, HOV lanes from Highway 101 to I‑94 in the Minneapolis area were converted to dynamically priced HOT lanes.
• There are two sections:  the 3-mile east section, closest to downtown, has two reversible lanes that are barrier separated from the general purpose traffic; the 8-mile west section has one lane each direction with double-white stripes separating the HOT lane from the general purpose lane.  This was the first case of nonbarrier-separated, “stripe only” HOT lanes in the World.  Also, this is the first time dynamic pricing has been introduced on HOT lanes with multiple access/egress points and with a single lane HOT lane section.
• By policy, speeds in the MnPASS Lanes must remain above 55 miles per hour, 95 percent of the time.
• The HOT lanes operate from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. heading into Minneapolis (eastbound) and from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. heading out of Minneapolis to the suburbs (westbound).  This is consistent with the previous HOV lane operating hours.
• Phase I planning, implementation and construction occurred from 2002-2005; operations and evaluation period was from 2005-present.  The lanes are still operating.

• Total cost of the project was estimated to be $12,982,800.  VPPP grant was received in FY 2004 and covered planning, outreach, and education and totaled $925,000.
• Minimum toll is set at $0.25 per section and maximum is $8.  Typical peak-hour tolls range from $1 to $4.  Average toll paid per trip is $1.16.
• MnPASS is statewide electronic toll system.  Monthly fee for transponder lease is $1.50.
• Initial annual gross revenues were estimated at $2 to $2.5 million per year.  At maturity, annual revenues of $3 to $3.5 million were expected based on 24-hour operation in both directions.  Actual revenue is about half the original estimate due in part to reduced minimum fares and a necessary policy change which allows tolling only in the peak direction.
• The original plan was for the HOT lanes to operate all day, however when the lanes opened initially, there was an increase in general purpose lane congestion in the nonpeak direction.  This increase in congestion was due to a reduction in general purpose lane capacity since the pre-HOT implementation configuration allowed all vehicles to use the HOV lane in the reverse-peak direction.  The public outcry prompted the legislature to force Mn/DOT to change the operating policy.  As a result, revenue from the HOT lane operation is considerably less than originally forecast.
• A modified toll rate structure was implemented in January 2006 that adjusted the toll rate scale that was applied for different congestion levels.  Although the range of possible tolls remained unchanged, this modification typically resulted in higher average tolls ($0.55 to $1.10 average toll) as increases in toll levels were triggered by higher congestion levels.
• In September of 2006, the MnPASS lanes were averaging $4,400 a day in toll and fee revenue, which allowed the Express Lanes to meet operating expenses.
• First 50 percent of net revenue after capital and operating costs are covered is mandated for transit improvements in corridor, remaining revenue generated can be allocated for corridor improvement.

• February 22, 2001 the Minnesota State Legislature posted Bill H.F. 1054 (Minnesota Session Laws 2001, 1st Special Session, Chapter 8, Article 1, Section, Subdivision 7(c)) mandating that Mn/DOT conduct a study of how opening the High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on I‑394 to general-purpose traffic would impact traffic flow and safety.
• The project was developed and completed through a public/private partnership involving the State of Minnesota and Wilbur Smith Associates.  The contract was a design/build arrangement with the private firm funded 25 percent of the project’s cost through in-kind contributions.  The private firm did not take any revenue risk.

• The I‑394 HOT lane was the culmination of more than a decade of attempts to create tolling and pricing projects in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region.  An earlier attempt to implement I‑394 HOT lanes in the mid 1990s did not move forward.
• To advance this project, a I‑394 Community Task Force was created of representatives of local elected officials, citizens and community leaders.  A comprehensive evaluation plan has been developed and is being implemented to thoroughly understand conditions and public attitudes before and during project operations.
• Three focus groups were held before implementation with solo drivers who travel into downtown Minneapolis during peak commuting hours.  A fourth focus group was held with carpoolers and the fifth focus group consisted of bus commuters.  The participants in the focus groups represented a general cross section of the population from the Twin Cities (mix of age, income, employment, and gender) who commute into or beyond downtown Minneapolis, during peak commuting hours and travel I‑394 or an adjacent highway, such as Highway 55 or Highway 7.
• A January 2002 survey found that 57 percent of Minnesota drivers supported “having an option of paying a fee to use an uncongested freeway when in a hurry.”
• A January 2004 Star Tribune survey found that:  “…69 percent of Minnesota adults like the idea of paying for new highway lanes with tolls collected from drivers who choose to use them.”

• Tolls vary up to 20 times an hour depending on traffic levels (“density” in the HOT lanes), which are determined with in roadway sensors.
• MnPASS drivers need to open a prepaid account with a credit card and then install a transponder to the inside of their vehicle’s windshield.
• A first in HOT lane enforcement, special transponders in police vehicles are used to track vehicles entering HOT lanes with audible tone indicating that a tolling transponder is valid.  Enforcement beacons mounted above roadways also will signal if a transponder is present.  Violation fine is assessed at $142.  Mobile enforcement readers can validate that transponders were engaged at the previous antenna location.
• As of November 2006 findings, enforcement stops totaled 3,300 on the I‑394 corridor, 50 percent of stops involved HOV or double white line crossing violations.  Violation rates on I‑394 are lower than rates on I‑35W.

• An evaluation of transit service characteristics in the corridor was completed.
• Monitoring conducted by Mn/DOT revealed no adverse CO emissions impacts from implementation of the project.  Additional monitoring revealed no significant increases in corridor noise levels.
• While higher-income motorists are more likely to have MnPASS transponders and use the lane, drivers of all income levels use the lanes, and the level of support for the option of using the lane for a fee is high among all income levels.  Sixty-four percent of I‑394 and I‑35W corridor residents with incomes below $50,000 support and 21 percent oppose allowing single drivers to use the carpool lanes by paying a fee.

• I‑394 MnPASS lanes peak-hour volumes increased from 9 to 33 percent between June and December 2005, after implementation of MnPASS.
• Despite increases in volume, travel speeds in HOT lanes have not decreased.  At the same time, speeds in the general purpose lanes increased from 2 percent to 15 percent during peak rush hours.
• Preliminary performance data for I‑394 MnPASS for the first six months of operation indicates the following:
  • Toll trips per week (average):  17,625;
  • Revenue per week (average):  $20,377; and
  • Toll per trip (average):  $1.16.
• A technical evaluation of the project released in November 2006 included the following key findings:
• Over 10,000 transponders have been leased by users and the average user chooses to pay the MnPASS lane toll about twice a week.
• Before and after vehicle volumes through the corridor increased during the peak hour by up to 5 percent.  This increase occurred while regional volumes in other non-MnPASS corridors observed a decrease.
• Total hours of delay in the corridor have declined appreciably since the implementation of MnPASS.
• Travel speeds increased in the general purpose lanes, as well as the MnPASS lane, providing a reduction in travel times through the corridor.
• Key findings from a November 2006 Attitudinal Study of the I‑394 project include:
  • Dynamic Pricing Works – Average speeds of 50 mph are maintained 95 percent of the time.  Survey results indicate that 85 percent of users are satisfied with the speed of the traffic flow in the MnPASS lane.
  • Technology Works – More than 95 percent of current customers are satisfied with the all-electronic system; 93 percent are satisfied with the credit card-based system of funding accounts; 92 percent are satisfied with the ease of installing the transponder, and; 87 percent reported no problems merging into the MnPASS lane.
  • Broad Support – Approval was consistent across all income groups – 71 percent higher-income, 61 percent middle-income, and 64 percent lower-income indicated “strong” or “somewhat” approval of tolling.  Support remained strong among carpoolers (60 percent “good idea”) and stable among transit users (49 percent “good idea”).
  • HOV Use Has Not Changed – The current mode share of I‑394 panelists is comparable to that captured in the first round surveys, pre-operation:  81 percent drive alone and 19 percent carpool

• Two different teams were subsequently contracted by Mn/DOT to evaluate different aspects of the I‑394 MnPASS deployment.  The Attitudinal Evaluation Team, headed by the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute State and Local Policy Program supported by NuStats, Inc., was charged with collecting and analyzing the public’s perceptions regarding the MnPASS system.
• The Technical Evaluation Team was managed by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and supported by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson and LJR, Inc.  This team was tasked with collecting and analyzing data regarding the ability of the MnPASS system to achieve the stated project goals, and to evaluate other performance impacts observed in the corridor.
• In order to isolate the impact of the MnPASS deployment, the evaluation approach was designed to analyze data collected over broad time periods both before and after the implementation to provide a wide sampling of travel conditions under a variety of influencing factors.  This provides the opportunity to group and compare conditions on similar travel days both before and after the implementation, and minimizes the erroneous identification of MnPASS impacts based on averages from a limited sampling on diverse travel days.  This also provides the opportunity to assess how the impacts of the MnPASS system vary based on different conditions (e.g., good weather days versus bad weather days, Tuesdays versus Fridays, etc.) in order to provide Mn/DOT with valuable feedback on when and under which conditions the system is more or less effective.

• The “QuickRide” pricing program implemented in 1998 on an existing reversible HOV lane in the median of I‑10.  A similar program was implemented on U.S. 290 (the Northwest Freeway) in year 2000.  In both cases, carpools with 2 occupants were allowed to “buy-in” to the HOV lane usually reserved for carpools with 3 or more occupants.  Thus these lanes are HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes where buy-in is available to 2-person carpools while the single occupant vehicles are excluded from the HOT Lanes.
• Thirteen-mile I‑10 HOV lane was initially open to buses and registered vanpools and later allowed carpools with 2 or more occupants.  As the lane became congested 1990s, occupancy requirement were changed to allow only carpools with 3 or more occupants during peak hours.  This led to excess capacity and a significant reduction in number of persons typically moved during peak hours.
• Allowing a limited number of 2-person carpools into the lane through the use of electronic tolling equipment allowed state/local agencies to make better use of available capacity without reintroducing congested conditions.
• Under QuickRide, two-person carpools were allowed to use the HOV lane for a $2 per trip fee during rush hours (6:45-8:00 a.m. and 5:00-6:00 p.m.; morning only on U.S. 290).  Three-person carpools still free.  Prior to 1990, the morning rush hour was defined as 6:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
• An initial QuickRide balance of $40 is required.  Fee deducted for each use.  When balance reaches $10, credit card charged to bring balance back to $40.
• Monthly statement were issued reflecting all trip costs and credit card charges.
• A one time $15 Trip Tag deposit and a $2.50 monthly service fee are required.
• To maintain free-flow traffic conditions, the target number of QuickRide vehicles was initially set at 600 during each peak hour.
• Enforcement handled by METRO police already stationed at HOV lane exit locations.
• In a little more than a year, 650 transponders had been issued and between 100 to 200 tolled trips daily were made on the I‑10 QuickRide lane during the two peak periods combined.  As of April 2002, over 1,500 transponders had been issued for QuickRide access on both the Katy Freeway and U.S. 290.  By 2004, there were 2,200 registered QuickRide users.
• Study is underway (expected completion date August 2009) to develop an implementation plan for a network of managed lanes in Houston that would include expansion of current HOT programs on the Katy and Northwest Freeways and add tolling to the other four HOV lanes to develop an integrated network of HOT lanes.  Current activities are focusing on enforcement options.
• The Katy Freeway is undergoing a massive multi-year reconstruction to increase the number of general purpose lanes to eight (four in each direction) and expand the HOV lane to four managed lanes, two in each direction, with three lanes operated as HOT lanes where HOV-2 and solo drivers will pay tolls.  Some sections have been completed with the final section scheduled for completion in late 2008.  Tolling operations are expected to begin in the fall of 2008.

• VPPP grant of $460,000 was awarded.
• Toll revenues from several hundred vehicles each day pay for costs of maintaining and servicing accounts (approximately $100,000 per year).  This excludes the costs of capital, marketing and start-up costs paid with Federal pricing grant funds as well as costs of enforcement and enrollment services already in place as part of other METRO programs (TRB News, September-October 1999).
• Revenues generated by the program between 1998 and 2003 totaled $417,734.

• The Texas Department of Transportation owns and operates the freeways, but the QuickRide lanes are operated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston Metro), which operates all HOV lanes in the region.
• TxDOT, Houston Metro, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration, as well as the Harris County Toll Road Authority, all have a stake in the projects completed and planned in the Houston area, necessitating the negotiation of cooperative agreements to implement any pricing project on the region’s HOV lanes.
• The planned expansion to managed lanes represent not only the expansion in scope of the HOT lane concept, but also unique partnership developed between TxDOT, HCTRA, and METRO.

• QuickRide marketing campaign began on January 5, 1998, with advertisements in the Houston Chronicle (both general circulation and neighborhood editions) and radio spots played during rush-hour traffic reports.
• Advertisements were coordinated with issuance of QuickRide application packets so potential users could view the packets at the same time the ads were run.
  Nearly 1,400 individuals participated in 14 public meetings and two focus groups to measure public opinion on the QuickRide project before it was implemented.  One focus group consisted entirely of Katy Freeway users, while the second consisted of members of the general public.  The users group included SOV drivers, carpoolers and transit riders, while the general public group did not contain any regular Katy Freeway users, but did include a cross-section of population representing a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds.  (Collier and Goodin, 2002).
• Members of the Katy users group felt that QuickRide would be a good way of using excess capacity, yet the majority did not anticipate using the service every day.  Some bus riders felt the project would result in more carpools and fewer bus riders.
• Focus group members felt that if the project were to be acceptable, use of project revenues should be clearly defined and the public must feel confident in the ability of agencies involved to operate and enforce the pricing project.
• The Katy user’s focus group ultimately recommended against the project, recommending improvements in bus service and the HOV lane.  The general public group also felt that project would not be worth the effort and would not encourage the use of carpools and transit.

• Approved applicants receive an Auto ID (rearview mirror hang tag) and a METRO Trip Tag (small, credit card-sized transponder to attach to inside of windshield).  The Transponder is an “active” tag and “reads” each time an equipped vehicle uses Katy or 290 HOT lanes.
• Accepts Harris County Toll Road EZ tags and is interoperable with TxTAG (TxDOT) and TOLLTAG (NTTA).

• Social equity was not an issue for the Katy users focus group.  Most felt that pricing was an economic solution where one pays for premium service.
• The general public focus group did not indicate a bias toward low-income users.  They felt that if the program were successful in alleviating congestion, everyone would benefit (with the exception of 3-person carpools since the HOV lane would have more users).
• Some members of the general public focus group expressed the opinion that it was unfair to pay for roads initially financed and constructed with tax money.  They felt that the project should be used to generate revenue to support transit improvements and/or improvements on the main lanes of all freeways, rather than just the HOV lanes.

• Surveys indicate that most QuickRide participants are persons who formerly traveled in single-occupant vehicles on the regular lanes (a quarter to a third of QuickRide trips).  (FHWA/ops/quarterly report) There was, however, a significant movement of 2-person carpools from the general purpose lanes to the QuickRide lane.
• Diversion of bus, vanpool and 3+ occupant carpoolers to QuickRide appeared to be limited to roughly 5 to 8 percent of the QuickRide trips.  (Shin and Hickman, 1999a and b; LKC Consulting Services, Inc. and Texas Transportation Institute, 1998 in Road Value Pricing, 2003.)
• Most participants only use the facility occasionally, with about 25 percent of QuickRide users using their tag on any given day and only about 6.5 percent of enrolled tags producing five or more commute trips a week (out of 10 possible trips).
• After six months of program initiation, only about 25 percent of registered QuickRide tags had been used.  Of those, about 40 percent were second tags owned by single household.  It appears that many participants value having an electronic tag as insurance to meet occasional needs.
• On I‑10, during AM peak, average speed on general purpose lanes was 25 mph, while average speed on the QuickRide lane was 59 mph (over 17-minute time saving for 13‑mile trip).  During the PM peak, average general purpose lane speed was 27 mph, while average QuickRide lane speed was 58 mph (a 15‑minute time savings).  [Burris and Stockton].
• On U.S. 290, the QuickRide time savings (relative to travel on the mixed use lanes) were 11 minutes for a 15-mile trip.  The addition of QuickRide program caused the HOV2 volume to increase 40.3 percent between 2000 and 2001, while the HOV3 volume changed very little (-2.7 percent).  The total volume on the HOV lane increased by 21.1 percent.
• The Katy/290 HOT lanes receive considerably lower patronage than HOT lane projects in California have experienced.  The fact that the Texas HOT lanes are buy-ins by 2‑person carpools rather than single occupant vehicles likely explains much of this difference, with survey results showing that the effort/disutility of forming a carpool was a major deterrent to QuickRide participation.  The $2 toll was not found to be a significant deterrent to participation in the QuickRide program.  (Burris and Appiah.)

• The QuickRide program has been intensively examined in a number of academic studies, many by the Texas Transportation Institute under sponsorship by the Texas Department of Transportation, Houston Metro, and the Federal Highway Administration.
• Studies have examined QuickRide usage by time, occupancy, vehicle type and various user characteristics.  Data used have included billing records for QuickRide trips and surveys of current and former QuickRide enrollees.  For instance, a study of frequency of usage relied on a mail survey of 1,459 QuickRide enrollees.  The survey included 36 questions regarding QuickRide and non-QuickRide trips, typical use of QuickRide, opinions on alternate pricing schemes, and user socioeconomic characteristics.

• The Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) SR 167 Hot Lane pilot project evaluated the High-Occupancy and Toll (HOT) lane concept to manage congestion, generate revenue and test transponder technology.  The conversion of the existing HOV to HOT lanes has been completed and opened to traffic May 3rd, 2008.  
• The SR 167 High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Pilot Project will convert the existing HOV lanes from Southwest 15th Street in Auburn to I‑405 in Renton, without expansion of the existing freeway.  There is one lane in each direction.
• Average daily traffic on Highway 167 is about 110,000 vehicles. WSDOT predicts 5,000 drivers a day will utilize HOT lanes.
• Non-HOV drivers will pay an electronic toll for access to nonbarrier-separated express lanes in both directions along 9 miles of SR 167.  Rates will fluctuate based on traffic levels in the express HOT lanes.  HOV 2+ vehicles will travel for free.
• Planning, implementation and construction 2004-2008; study and evaluation period 2008-2012.

• Total project cost estimated at $17.9 million; the VPPP grant total for FY 2004 and 2005 equaled $2,060,000.  Preliminary engineering and construction are expected to account for the majority of the cost.
  Toll rates will vary based on congestion in the HOT lane, so that that HOT lane remains free flowing.  Toll rates are estimated to average between $1.50 and $2 per trip when the HOT Lane begins operation in 2008.  Toll rates could be considerably higher depending on traffic conditions.  Earlier estimates of 2010 maximum and minimum rates were between $0.60 and $6 for the 9-mile trip.
• Opening year toll revenue is estimated to be about $1.0 million increasing to approximately $3 million in 2012.
• Preliminary capital costs of conversion of these existing HOV lanes are estimated to be recovered by net annual toll revenue within 11 to 12 years.

• WSDOT obtained legislative approval for this four-year trial.  A study was completed to identify which highway in the Puget Sound region could best test the HOT lane concept.
• A Corridor Working Group was formed and composed of representatives from cities along the SR 167 corridor, Pierce and King Counties, the Washington State Patrol, regional agencies, and WSDOT.
• Authorizing legislation created a special multimodal account specifying that HOT lane revenue, “may be used for… debt service, planning, administration, construction, maintenance, operation, repair, rebuilding, enforcement, and expansion of high-occupancy toll lanes and to increase transit, vanpool and carpool, and trip reduction services in the corridor.”The legislation also directs that, “a reasonable proportion of the moneys…be dedicated to increase transit, vanpool, carpool, and trip reduction services in the corridor” (ESHB 2808, 2004).
• There are no statutory requirements to repay debt or pay for operations and maintenance costs.  There also is no requirement for a citizen’s advisory committee.
• The Washington State Transportation Commission holds statutory toll rate setting authority over the proposed HOT lanes and has set the toll rates to be a minimum of $0.50 and maximum of $9.00.

• A Stakeholder Advisory Committee, comprised of affected jurisdictions, advocacy groups, corridor users, and other affected stakeholders, was consulted at key decision points during the implementation of the pilot study.
• Over two years, a series of community meetings and varied outreach events were held to gauge public understanding and educate drivers of the legality of using HOT lanes.
• Focus groups included 3 low-income-specific groups, 2 typical commuter groups, and 1 small/service businesses group.  Findings from these outreach efforts included:  1) Low-income drivers generally as supportive, if not more supportive, of the HOT lane concept than typical drivers; 2) Business leaders and service business leaders see and value the benefit of trip reliability; and; 3) Trip reliability and time savings are important to all constituents.
• Updated project materials, including the HOT Lanes folio and web site with explanatory video.  Continued public comments tracking and responses.
• From a peer-review of SR 167 activities by representatives from other state HOT projects the following key findings from public activities were presented:
  • Public communication should emphasize that this project is only in a demonstration period to fine-tune the system but also to illustrate that HOT lanes are here to stay and that more are on the way.
  • SR-167 project’s focus on the customer, including community meetings, focus groups, workshops, surveys and stakeholder involvement is very good.
  • Messaging must continually emphasize that transit and carpool service will not be degraded and what revenue will be used for.
• Have communications plan in place for opening day, included readily available data and anticipate questions by meeting with media and editorial boards throughout process.

• Transponder-equipped vehicles may enter HOT lanes at certain access points.  Toll rates will vary dynamically with the level of congestion in the HOT lanes to ensure that tolled traffic flows at least 45 mph 90 percent of the time during the peak.
• Drivers pay the single rate at which they enter the HOT lane for the entire distance of their trip, regardless if tolls are updated en route.
• The existing HOV lane was modified from an enter-at-will configuration and re-striped to defined HOT lanes with double white stripe buffers, and defined access points.
• Tolls are debited from existing pre-paid accounts using the State’s existing windshield-mounted sticker transponders (branded “Good to Go” in Washington State).  Customers must pay $12 to purchase a transponder and can set up accounts with credit cards, bank accounts or cash to establish pre-paid account.
• Transponder-equipped vehicles participating in carpools are able to temporarily disable the transponder and travel for free. Customers must pay $3.50 to purchase a disabling devise for the purpose.
• WSDOT funds additional Washington State Patrol troopers to monitor HOT lane traffic.  When single drivers with a valid e-sticker enter the HOT lanes, a light will flash on the overhead sensor.  If the light does not flash and there is a single passenger in the vehicle, a state trooper will stop the vehicle and issue a citation of $124.

• Focus groups were held in south King County with lower-income commuters that frequently use SR 167.  Members of these groups expressed interest in paying a toll to use the HOT lane.
• WSDOT plans to survey users of the HOT lanes after the lanes are open to determine if there are any impacts.
• Bus and carpool travel times are not expected to decrease as a result of the project.
• Transit advocacy groups suggested that toll rates must not offer an incentive for solo commuters to transfer trips from transit or carpool options in the corridor.

• Any actual impacts are unknown, since the project has not opened yet.
• Studies estimate that 13 percent more vehicles will travel the SR 167 corridor daily, and 38 percent more vehicles will use the HOV/HOT lanes, while preserving express trips for buses, vanpools and carpools.
• Estimates indicate room for an additional 450 more vehicles per hour in the HOV/HOT lane before the 1,500 vehicles per hour threshold is reached.

• During the four-year study period, the program’s performance, socioeconomic impacts, and public interest and acceptance of the facility will be assessed on an annual basis.