Value Pricing Pilot Program: Lessons Learned – Appendix B

2.0 Variable Pricing of New Express Lanes

Table 2.1 Express Lanes on State Route 91 in Orange County, California

Pricing of New Lanes	Express Lanes on State Route 91 in Orange County, California
Operations	Opened in December 1995 as a four-lane toll facility, adding two new lanes in each direction.  First fully automated (ETC/transponder only) facility in the world. Located on median of a 10-mile section of Riverside/State 91 freeway; the toll lanes are separated from the general purpose lanes by a painted buffer and plastic pylons; no intermediate exits or entrances; heavy vehicles prohibited. Express lanes connect major employment centers of Orange County and southern L.A. County with residential communities of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Tolls started as same toll for each four-hour peak (and the six-hour p.m. peak on Friday); changed in September 1997 to varying hour-by-hour in peak (pre-set schedule to maintain free flow, but not dynamic tied to real-time congestion); as of August 2005, tolls on the express lanes varied between $1.10 and $7.75; Since April 1, 2007, the toll on the busiest hour on the tollway, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastbound of Fridays, is $9.50, or 95 cents per mile.  Tolls now adjusted by formula established by OCTA (current owner) to keep lanes congestion-free. FasTrak transponder required of all vehicles; HOV3+ were free prior to January 1998, thereafter free except eastbound, Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., paying 50 percent of the regular toll; same policy for motorcycle; other toll discounts apply to disabled veteran and zero-emission vehicles.  HOV-3+ vehicles use a “3+ verification lane” in the toll zone. As of 2004, averaging about 35,000 vehicles per day; 172,000 transponders in circulation as of 2005; lanes carry over 40 percent of the total SR-91 traffic during peak periods, with one-third of the total freeway capacity. Initial operations under private developer, California Private Transportation Company (CPTC); in January 2003, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) purchased the private project for $207.5 million, beginning public operations. The CHP provides police services at facility owner’s expense; maintenance and operational costs also the responsibility of owner.
Cost, Finance, and Revenue	The four-lane, 10-mile-long toll facility was constructed for approximately $134M with private funds. In 2005, a FHWA VPPP grant of $588,000 was awarded for evaluation. Toll revenues covers construction and operating costs. CPTC corporate reports indicate “acceptable financial performance” when operated as private facility. State saved construction and operating, enforcement costs; Orange County gained property taxes from CPTC ($6.8 million in first 6 years) when under private ownership. Benefit/cost analysis comparing express to dual carpool lanes showed higher net present value for express (490M versus 303M) largely due to higher travel time savings and in spite of higher operating costs. Net income (revenue – expenses) 733,000 in 1996 rising to 13.7 million in 2001, according to CPTC audits.
Policy/Institutional	Set up as private for-profit investment, one of four private-public partnership authorized by the California Legislature under the AB 680 legislation enacted in 1989. AB 680 provides up to 35-year lease of right-of-way and airspace, which then reverts to the State (may remain a toll road); must be built to state standards; meet applicable laws, environmental standards; any state services fully compensated. CPTC transferred ownership of the facility to the State of California prior to opening, Caltrans then leased the toll road back to CPTC for a 35-year operating period. Initial franchise agreement with Caltrans included “noncompete” provision to limit nearby corridor improvements, except safety-related improvements, which could be built. AB 1010, Chapter 688 (2002) allowed OCTA to purchase the Toll Road from CPTC (for over $200 million); eliminates noncompete clause; OCTA prohibited from transferring its franchise without state approval; all projects become nontoll when franchises expire; no more new franchises after January 1, 2003; creates an SR 91 advisory committee with strong local political control. New legislation has been introduced to allow OCTA and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to extend lanes into Riverside County and extend franchise period.
Outreach/Acceptance	Private Sector Operations – Controversy arose around “noncompete clause” in CPTC-Caltrans agreement preventing widening the nontolled lanes for nonsafety purposes along 30 miles of the Riverside Freeway; CPTC sued Caltrans over proposed widening at interchange with Eastern Transportation Corridor extending east to the Riverside County Line, Caltrans withdrew project as a result of CPTC litigation and CPTC ultimately dismissed with OCTA purchase; while under CPTC ownership, two unsuccessful bills (AB 1091, AB 1346) sought to void the noncompete clause, have public acquire lanes by condemnation. Public Opinion – Project consistently received high marks from customers.  As part of controversy on noncompete issue, commuter group approval of private companies operating toll roads decreased to 30-45 percent between 1996 and 1999, compared to 50‑75 percent approval in 1996; in spite of this, commuters approve (in the 45‑75 percent range) priced or HOT lane concepts if lanes do not become congested. Media – Media coverage grew negative around noncompete issue, noting CPTC has a “monopoly” over the SR 91 freeway through the 35-year contract.
Technology	AVI required of all vehicles, including free pass carpools. Transponders compatible with California “Title 21” standard and usable on all state toll facilities. Express separated from the general purpose lanes by a painted buffer and plastic pylons. Credit card account to maintain positive cash balance in the driver’s toll account required, but no deposit on its AVI transponders. Upstream changeable message signs provide traveler information on closures. Violation enforcement by video and CHP.
Equity/Environmental	Emissions – Modeling indicated emissions with the priced 91X project would have been about the same as with dual HOV lanes or dual general use lanes constructed instead; however, much would depend on uncertain level of “induced travel” and emission model has structural weakness (see evaluation section of table). User Incomes – “Moderate” income effect (percent of trips on 91X for the lowest and highest incomes – 20 percent and 50 percent – stayed same over survey period); use of 91X increased over time for all modes across all incomes. Gender – Generally, proportion of commuters using 91X lanes over the free lanes has been higher for females than for males (only in the HOV3+ category is the proportion higher for males than females).
Impacts	Traffic, Overall – Express lanes accommodate 1,400 to 1,600 vehicles/hour/lane, throughput 33 percent higher than general-purpose lanes because of free flow express conditions; overall facility less congested than previous facility.  In PM peak Express Lanes carry 40 to 50 percent of total vehicles on only 33 percent of capacity. Carpools – 40 percent increase in HOV3+ opening probably due to free use policy in first two years; charging HOV3+ 50 percent beginning 1998 did not change overall HOV use in corridor; overall, more SR 91 commuters shifted from single occupant vehicles (SOV) to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) than vice versa. Transit – No significant effect on transit use (1 percent) in corridor. Accidents – Accident down after the toll lanes opened, probably due to decreased congestion; accidents on comparison section of 91 increased. Employer/Family/Other Pay of Tolls – About 18 percent do not pay own tolls. Comfort/Safety – Some users use lanes for comfort or safety even if time savings not great; four times as many say 91X lanes are safer than the freeway lanes as say lanes are less safe. Time Savings – Users reported saving 20-40 minutes per trip; overestimated time savings by 5-30 minutes. Elasticities – About 0.7 to 0.8 during the six-hour period of heaviest use (morning westbound or afternoon eastbound); 0.9 and 1.0 during one-hour “peak of the peak.” Mode, Time-of-Day Changes – “Very small” shifts to different vehicle occupancies or times of day in response to toll, possibility because of available parallel unpriced lanes. Diversion – No evidence of diversion to/from regional freeways; use of parallel streets decreased substantially shortly after the 91X lanes opened, then increased 1 in 1998, when freeway congestion increased.
Evaluation	CalPoly State University evaluator in two phases covering operations and impacts from June 1997 to late 1999 (initial report May 1998, final report December 2000); evaluation included direct observations, surveys of corridor users, and impact modeling No formal control corridor, but occasional reference to a nontolled comparison section of 91, adjoining general purpose lanes and nearby freeway corridors (SR 60 and SR 57). Telephone surveys (1,788 completed interviews) included present and former commuters; residents from surrounding areas in proportion to the geographic distribution of SR 91 commuters; a panel of travelers surveyed over time; drivers identified by license plate observations and transponder use; commuters participating in U.C. Irvine researchers. Multiple evaluation data sources added confidence to conclusions when converging. EMFAC emission modeling did not account for the local effects of accelerations and decelerations, using factors derived from average free flow speeds and thereby indicating more congested periods have lower emissions.

Sources:
http://ceenve3.civeng.calpoly.edu/sullivan/sr91/sr91.htm.
http://pwm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/259.
http://www.uctc.net/scripts/access.pl?25/Access%2025%20-%2005%20-%20Lessons%20From%20SR%2091.pdf.
http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc_2007/CW00000091.htm.
http://www.trb.org/Conferences/RoadPricing/Presentations/Sullivan.ppt.

Table 2.2 Texas: Express Toll Lanes on I-30/Tom Landry in Dallas

Pricing of New Lanes	Texas:  Express Toll Lanes on I‑30/Tom Landry in Dallas
Operations	The I‑30 West (Tom Landry) Freeway managed HOV lanes will be a phased implementation.  The project will open as an interim HOV lane and transition to tolled express lanes in later phases. I.H. 30/Tom Landry Freeway serves as a major east/west corridor between Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas.  The 15-mile corridor identified in the value pricing plan extends from Arlington to the Dallas Central Business District. In 2004, the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Value Pricing Corridor Evaluation and Feasibility Study, a cooperative study between FHWA’s VPPP and local stakeholders, determined that the I.H. 30/Tom Landry Freeway corridor was a viable demonstration project corridor for implementation of value pricing concepts. I‑30 currently is undergoing a staged reconstruction process.  Currently, the staged construction plan calls for five lanes of mixed-flow traffic in each direction, with a single and double reversible HOV lane.  The number of lanes will change from Dallas to Fort Worth from a one lane reversible to a two, three, and then two lane sections before feeding a concurrent one – one lane section in each direction heading toward Fort Worth. The project is the D-FW region’s first multilane reversible HOV facility, with two reversible lanes operating during the peak periods between proposed wishbone ramps west of Westmoreland Road in Dallas and Northwest 19th Street. In July 2007, the first six miles opened of the new HOV lanes stretching between Dallas and Fort Worth on Tom Landry Freeway (I‑30).  The new High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes will eventually will stretch between Dallas and Fort Worth on Tom Landry Freeway (I‑30). The first section to open is between the Dallas/Tarrant County Line and Loop 12.  The lanes are available to vehicles with two or more occupants, buses, motorcycles and other eligible vehicles, Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.  Other lanes set to open throughout the fall of 2007and early 2008 are on the Central Expressway (U.S. 75), LBJ Freeway (I‑635), and East R. L. Thornton (I‑30). Between 2009 and 2010, the I‑30 lanes will become the region’s first managed HOV facility, allowing access to single-occupant vehicles for a fee.  Eventually, the lanes will operate 20 hours a day and extend from I‑820 in Fort Worth all the way to downtown Dallas. Activities planned for the next two quarters of 2008 include: A draft traffic and revenue study has been returned for incorporation of received comments.  This will become a base reference document. A draft white paper – “Active Transportation Management Strategies Using Managed Lanes (Introduction to Strategies and Techniques)” is being finalized for a broader distribution. Monitor the operating HOV project for operational needs and measure the traffic volumes. Hold a technical advisory committee meeting with Local/Regional/State/Federal partners for the project after the managed lane opens in a full HOV configuration in the fall of 2008. Incorporate the results of the draft traffic and revenue study to propose a fixed and dynamic pricing tolling structure for this project. Work through the design of the advanced signing for the project and how the ITS data will be utilized for tracking the performance of the managed lanes on this project.
Cost/Finance/Revenue	A VPPP grant of $152,000 was awarded in FY 2002 to support a regionwide study of HOT lanes on I‑30.  In FY 2004, $472,416 was awarded to support implementation of the I‑30 managed lanes concept.
Policy/Institutional	The Regional Value Pricing Task Force is composed of members from the Dallas and Fort Worth TxDOT Districts; Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), the regional transit agency serving the Dallas area and managing existing HOV operations in the area; the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T), the regional transit agency serving the Fort Worth area; the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA), the regional tollway authority; the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the region’s MPO; and the Texas Transportation Institute, active participants in TxDOT-sponsored managed lane research. Statewide and regional policy requires that as capacity is added in a corridor, it must be re-evaluated for potential toll/managed lane applications, including value pricing.
Outreach/Acceptance	The I.H. 30/Tom Landry Freeway Corridor Study will include continuous public involvement activities through its environmental study, feasibility study, and corridor study focused on the individual requirements of this corridor.  Regular public meetings will be held along with individual stakeholder meetings for more direct public input.
Technology	The tollway will utilize existing electronic transponder technology.
Equity/Environment	An equity analysis will be performed as part of the I.H. 30/Tom Landry Freeway Environmental Assessment.
Impacts	As of September 2007, the VPP project is moving forward with data collection and other activities to measure, monitor, and evaluate the operational HOV project.
Evaluation	Value Pricing Project evaluation has not yet started, first phase of HOV lane construction has been in operation since July 2007.

Sources:
North Central Texas Council of Governments, Regional Transportation Council, Interstate Highway 30/Tom Landry Freeway Managed Facility Operational Plan.  Proposal to:  Federal Highway Administration, Value Pricing Pilot Program.  Submitted Jointly by:  Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, North Central Texas Council of Governments, North Texas Tollway Authority, and Texas Department of Transportation (Dallas and Fort Worth Districts), July 2004.
http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/All+Documents/5E961B086ACA8265852570E50056BDB2/$FILE/TX%20DFW%20IH-30%20Managed%20Facility%20Operational%20Plan.pdf.

Table 2.3 Priced Queue Jumps in Lee County, Florida

Pricing of New Lanes	Priced Queue Jumps in Lee County, Florida
Operations	A priced queue jump is a facility that a motorist can use by paying a toll to bypass severely congested points on the transportation network.  It might be a ramp or a bypass lane or lanes.  Lee County’s plan was to have tolls vary by time of day and be tied in with its existing electronic tolling system. Based on survey results (see below) candidate Queue Jump sites were screened and narrowed from a preliminary list of 10 potential sites to the top three; U.S. 41 at Hancock Bridge Parkway; Metro Parkway at Colonial Boulevard; and Summerlin Road at San Carlos Boulevard. Based on survey results, peak-hour usage of the queue jump was set at 25 percent of the traffic stream at the queue jump location.  The project team made a judgment that shoulder-peak usage would be 20 percent, off-peak usage would be 15 percent and weekend usage rate would be 20 percent.
Cost, Finance, and Revenue	In FY 2000, Lee County received $309,280 in FHWA VPPP funding and in FY 2005 received $1,069,120 in additional study implementation funding. The intent of a queue jump is to generate revenues sufficient to offset the cost of the queue jump and perhaps to fund other transportation improvements.  The feasibility study determined that, while the concept was financially feasible on a net present value basis if projected traffic levels were high enough, in each test case the  traditional bonding capacity of the queue jump was less than the projected cost of the queue jump. The project study team determined that if tolls were indexed at the rate of inflation and projected growth in traffic were incorporated into the analysis, “it appears likely that queue jumps could be financially self-supporting.”
Policy/Institutional	The Lee County Board of Commissioners has the legal authority to authorize a queue jump project, but support from and coordination with the Florida DOT and the Lee County MPO would be necessary for bringing any pilot test to the implementation stage.
Outreach/Acceptance	Since project concept is untested, public involvement deemed critical, both to familiarize motorists with the concept and to gather information about expected responses to the availability of a queue jump. This was a countywide analysis, so advisory committees were established using the MPO Citizen’s Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. Public presentations were made to local, regional and state government officials, civic and social organizations within Lee County and at the Federal Highway Administration’s Project Partners’ meeting in Atlanta, Georgia in October 2001. A project web site also was created. Postage-paid mail back surveys were distributed to drivers over a two-week period during February-March 2002, Lee County’s peak tourist season.  The surveys were designed to gather information about the overall approval of the project concept, acceptable toll levels, likely utilization at various toll prices, and likely reasons for using the queue jump. Approximately 9,949 surveys were distributed and 1,739 were returned (17.5 percent response rate). A focus group was convened to explore opinions and perceptions on the queue jump concept, including potential pricing levels, equity issues and any unanticipated issues.
Technology	The concept plans call for use of Lee County’s existing electronic tolling system (see table on Lee County:  Variable Bridge Tolls).
Equity/Environmental	A queue jump project would be expected to reduce emissions due to reductions in congestion.  Traffic levels and participation rates may not be high enough at the potential locations to make this effect noticeable in the context of areawide air quality levels.
Impacts	About 54 percent of drivers responding to the survey indicated a willingness to pay at least a small toll for the use of a queue jump, with the most acceptable (“appropriate”) toll rate being in the range of $0.25 to $0.40 per trip. Focus group participants favored the queue jump concept, with a suggested toll in the range of $0.10 to $0.25 per trip.  Some participants recommended a flat rate to have unlimited access to the queue jump at all times.
Evaluation	Traditional before/after analysis similar to the evaluation framework for the Lee County Variable Bridge Tolls project was proposed, but the project has not yet been implemented

Sources:
Lee County, Florida, www.leewayinfo.com.
Lee County, Florida, Sketch Plan:  Investigation of Implementation of a Value Priced Queue Jump Bypass for the Proposed Summerlin Road/Gladiolus Drive Interchange, September 2001.
Lee County, Florida, Value Priced Queue Jump Study, Final Report, January, 2003
Lee County, Florida, Executive Summary:  Evaluation of the Lee County Queue Jump Study.
Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Value Pricing Project Quarterly Report, July-September 2007.
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/projtypes/pricednewlanes.htm.

Table 2.4 Express Toll Lanes on Highway 217 in Portland, Oregon

Pricing of New Lanes	Express Toll Lanes on Highway 217 in Portland, Oregon
Operations	An 18-month study was conducted by the Highway 217 Policy Advisory Committee of Metro Council to evaluate solutions to traffic congestion on Highway 217.  The study evaluated several rush-hour toll and ramp meter bypass alternatives in this corridor, including consideration of FAIR (Free and Intertwining Regular) lanes.  Value pricing options were integrated into the mix of alternatives being evaluated and considered for implementation. The Highway 217 corridor is a major north-south route in the Portland metropolitan area, connecting I‑5 to U.S. 26. The Highway 217 Corridor Study, began in 2003, and was a cooperative effort by Metro, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, TriMet and the cities of Beaverton, Lake Oswego and Tigard. The Highway 217 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) completed Phase I, a study of 6 scenarios within the corridor, in the fall of 2004.  All of the options studied included improvements to interchanges, arterials, transit, and bike and pedestrian routes in the corridor.  Alternatives were evaluated as to how well they addressed the study objectives in terms of travel performance, environmental and neighborhood effects, financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The 6 options considered for review in Phase I are summarized below: Option 1 – Included arterial, transit and interchange improvements, no new lane on highway, and significantly increased transit service. Option 2 – Included six lanes without interchange improvements but new lane on highway in each direction. Option 3 – Included six lanes with interchange improvements and new lane on highway in each direction. Option 4 – Included six lanes with interchange improvements, a new lane in each direction for carpools, and increased transit service. Option 5 – Included six lanes with interchange improvements, a rush-hour toll lane in each direction, and increased transit service. Option 6 – Included six lanes with interchange improvements, a new lane on highway in each direction, new tolled lanes on entrance ramps to bypass meters, and increased transit service. The PAC made a final recommendation in November of 2005, of two improvement options to study further in Phase II.  The options recommended for further study were Option 3, 5, and 6. Phase II focuses on a more detailed study of how each option could be implemented in terms of public support, environmental and neighborhood effects, financial feasibility and phasing.  This evaluation recommended pursuing Options 3 and 5.  The Metro Council accepted those recommendations in February 2006. All of the options improve transportation performance on the corridor.  However, the PAC recommended that the general purpose and express toll lane options (3 and 5) be carried forward because of greater public acceptance and the importance of keeping potential financing options open.
Cost, Finance, and Revenue	Phases I and II of the study were completed using Value Pricing funding of $400,000 awarded in FY 2002. The study evaluated potential funding sources for each option during the next 20 years and determined the funding gap or shortfall for each option.  All options, except the rush-hour toll option, require major new funding sources: Option 1 – Cost in 2004 dollars of $544 million with a $505 million funding gap. Option 2 – Cost in 2004 dollars of $405 million with a $366 million funding gap. Option 3 – Cost in 2004 dollars of $496 million with a $457 million funding gap. Option 4 – Cost in 2004 dollars of $522 million with a $481 million funding gap. Option 5 – Cost in 2004 dollars of $564 million with a $124 million funding gap. Option 6 – Cost in 2004 dollars of $510 million with a $404 million funding gap. Both of the recommended options are expected to cost more than $500 million, presenting a significant funding gap with current anticipated highway funds.
Policy/Institutional	Metro is the directly elected regional government that serves more than 1.4 million residents in Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties, and the 25 cities in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. A 20-member policy advisory committee, the Highway 217 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), was appointed by the Metro Council to study to corridor.  The Committee was composed of community members, business representatives and elected officials. In February 2006 the Metro Council passed Resolution No. 06-3658 adopting recommendations of the Highway 217 corridor transportation plan.
Outreach/Acceptance	Phase I process offered numerous opportunities for public involvement, including stakeholder interviews, focus groups, two surveys, open houses and meetings with community and neighborhood groups. Phase II continued the public outreach process through a series of community meetings.  The Metro Council will continue to hold public hearings and seek comments.
Technology	Not evaluated.
Equity/Environmental	Phases I and II of the studies addressed environmental impacts of projects, the key findings of each option are summarized below: Option 1 – Option has highest level of environmental and neighborhood impacts due to the number of surface street improvements. Option 2 – Environmental and neighborhood impacts are low. Option 3 – Environmental and neighborhood impacts are medium. Option 4 – Environmental and neighborhood impacts are medium. Option 5 – Environmental and neighborhood impacts are medium. Option 6 – Environmental and neighborhood impacts are medium.
Impacts	The six options considered for review in Phase I and the key findings of each option are summarized below: Option 1 – Most expensive option, reduced congestion on surface streets, but does not improve overall drive times or congestion. Option 2 – Least expensive option but does not resolve merge/weave problems on Highway 217. Option 3 – Provides the greatest congestion relief and fastest trips for all users of Highway 217. Option 4 – Provides fast trip for users of carpool lane, but does not increase carpooling and does not relieve congestion on general-purpose lanes. Option 5 – Provides fast trip for users of the toll lane, reduces overall congestion on Highway 217, provides the most benefits for freight movement in the corridor, has the smallest funding gap, and could potentially be built sooner than other options. Option 6 – Provides similar improvements as Option 3, but has a smaller funding gap. Phase II evaluated three of the options described above and found that congestion within the corridor will increase from three to eight hours a day if no improvements are made over the next 20 years.  The options recommended to address this need included: Option A – The general purpose lane offers the most overall congestion relief and the fastest average drive time (saving 3 minutes over base case).  However, it is anticipated to have a capital cost of $523 million with an estimated funding gap of $504 million in 2014.  Estimated construction completed in 2019.  Wetland impacts equal approximately 2.8 acres.  Overall congestion relief benefits all trucks.  Public acceptance:  prefer ease of general purpose lane but concerns about projected construction timeline with traditional funding sources. Option B – The express toll lane offers some overall congestion relief in general purpose lanes (saves 1 minute) and the fastest travel time for toll lane travelers (saves 8.5 minutes over base case).  It offers an incentive for carpool travel and possible transit.  Wetland impacts:  approximately 3.2 acres.  Smallest funding gap with a capital cost of $581 million and an estimated funding gap of $332 million in 2014.  Without supplemental revenues, estimated construction completed in 2028.  Includes small trucks access toll lane and all trucks use ramp meter bypasses.  Public acceptance:  more acceptable as funding mechanism but reservations about complexity and feasibility of tolled facilities and about equity for all users. Option C – The general purpose lane with tolled ramp meter bypass has similar travel benefits as the general purpose lane for all drivers (saves 3 minutes over base case).  Significant funding gap with a capital cost $540 million and an estimated funding gap of $449 million in 2014.  Projections show limited revenue potential – approximately one-third that of the express toll lane option in 2014.  Without supplemental revenues, estimated construction completed in 2042.  Wetland impacts:  approximately 2.8 acres.  All trucks can access ramp meter bypasses.  Public comments were much more negative.  There was a perception that the tolled ramp meter bypasses are unfair and that people will respond negatively to those who travel on them.
Evaluation	The evaluation of the projected impacts was based on regional travel and traffic forecasting models similar to those used in the feasibility studies of many of the other projects described earlier.

Sources:
Metro Council, Highway 217 Policy Advisory Committee directs Metro to further study options to improve busy highway. News release:  September 22, 2005.
http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/15834.
Metro Council, Highway 217 Corridor Study Options, 2005.

Metro Council, Findings from First Phase of Study.  News Release.
Metro Council, Highway 217 Corridor Study, Phase II Overview Report, Study Findings and Preliminary Recommendations.  October 7, 2005.
http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/hcx.nsf/All+Documents/9FFE2840925C018A85256DBB0076BDBE/$FILE/Phase%20II%20Overview.pdf.