Advancing Congestion Pricing in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process: Four Case Studies

D. Interview Guide

1. Road Pricing Projects and Programs in your region:
   1. Let’s start by confirming what has been proposed in the past 10 years by your agency or others in your area of jurisdiction?
   2. What is committed to in the sense of pending implementation?
   3. What has moved forward into implemented project, if any?
2. What (if any) road pricing strategies currently are being considered in the MTP, Constrained Long-Range Plan, TIP, or other relevant agency plans?
   1. To what extent did the road pricing proposals emerge from the regional planning process via vision, goals, criteria, deficiencies, and finance assumptions, versus coming from outside the planning process (such as individual project proposals)?
   2. If proposals originated outside the regional plan process via vision, goals, criteria, deficiencies, and finance assumptions, were they later incorporated into the plan, and if so, how?
3. To what extent did the role of conformity, or other air quality planning, figure in the pricing proposals now in agency plans?
   1. If air quality did play a role in planning, what was the significance of climate change or other specific air quality issues?
   2. Did air quality provide an incentive or a hindrance to pricing planning and implementation, or some combination?
4. To what (if any) extent did financial considerations influence congestion pricing proposals in your region?
5. To what extent if any is road pricing combined in a package with other transportation improvements or initiatives?
   1. Transit?
   2. Other?
6. What plans have been outlined for distribution/use of potential excess revenue from the pricing strategy?
   1. Were there any legal or constitutional restrictions to consider?
   2. To what extent were any such requirements a factor in developing the plans?
7. Agency Roles. The role Federal, state, or local regulations and guidelines play in spurring or hindering current road pricing plans.
   1. Role of Federal programs, such as: Urban Partnerships; Value Pricing Pilot; Express Lanes Demonstration (ELD); Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD); Section 166 HOV to HOT; Interstate tolling restrictions;
   2. Role of state DOT;
   3. Role of MPO;
   4. Role of other regional agencies (such as congestion management agencies if they exist, or transit agencies); and
   5. Role of municipalities or counties.
8. Analytical methods and issues.
   1. Analytical approaches used to evaluate pricing proposals now in plans. Use of models in analysis, including which models were used, strengths and weaknesses, any modifications; interface with regional transportation and air quality models; foreseeable improvements, changes in response to issues that were identified. Particular topics:
      1. Transportation effects (e.g., volumes, VMT, transit ridership, trip reduction, elimination, diversion);
      2. Transportation effects (e.g., congestion levels, level of service, corridor speed, system speed, transit ridership);
      3. Revenues;
      4. Costs/benefits;
      5. Equity; and
      6. Other?
9. Communications and consensus-building.
   1. How road pricing strategies are framed and objectives communicated;
   2. If/how views of stakeholders, interest groups, key decision-makers for and against were assessed and taken into account toward acceptable compromises; if/how nurturing of champions and allies was done;
   3. If/how packaged with transit;
   4. Revenue distribution plan;
   5. Treatment of “stick point” issues, e.g., equity, effectiveness, economy impacts, revenue redistribution;
   6. Samples of perceived successful or problematic communication methods or approaches (flyers, newsletters, press releases, public hearing materials, brochures, web information, opinion/attitudinal surveys); and
   7. For ongoing programs, customer information materials (e.g., newsletters, mailings, and web information). Pros/cons of each.
10. Contingencies for potential negative impacts, e.g., technology or operations glitches, enforcement problems, lower than expected revenues, etc.
11. References.
    1. Analytic, modeling experts;
    2. Personnel in public relations or elsewhere directly responsible for relevant communications; and
    3. Relevant reports, meeting minutes, in-house documents, consultant studies, web sites.