Trade-Off for Road Pricing between Transportation Performance and Financial Feasibility

Abstract

This study estimates the transportation performance and financial impacts of express toll (ET) lane and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane concepts, with and without new bus rapid transit (BRT) service. Estimates are made for a prototypical suburban transportation corridor in a major metropolitan area with the use of the Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation, Managed Lanes (SMITE-ML), which was enhanced to analyze the conventional build concept with no priced lanes. The analysis demonstrates that in a typical case a HOT alternative may mitigate congestion more cost-effectively than an ET alternative. Combining BRT with ET may make this alternative much more effective, perhaps more effective than a HOT alternative with no BRT. BRT increases the benefits and economic efficiency of both ET and HOT alternatives, but it reduces financial feasibility because of the need for public tax support for transit. ET alternatives tend to be more financially feasible than HOT alternatives primarily because of the additional revenues generated from tolls; under this alternative, HOVs are not exempt from tolls. These conclusions hold up for the case study corridor even under extreme assumptions with regard to demand elasticity and value of time.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chen

, and Varaiya

. The Freeway-Congestion Paradox. Access, No. 20, University of California Transportation Center, Spring 2002.

DeCorla-Souza

Lessons Learned from the Value Pricing Pilot Program. Presented at 46th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Forum, Washington, D.C., March 6–8, 2005.

Participant Notebook for NHI Course No. 15260, Advanced Travel Demand Forecasting. Publication No. FHWA-HI-99-003. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999.

DeCorla-Souza

Evaluation of Toll Options with Quick-Response Analysis Tools: Case Study of the Capital Beltway. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1839, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 65–73.

DeCorla-Souza

An Evaluation of High-Occupancy-Toll and Fast and Intertwined Regular Networks. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.

Kuzmyak

J. R.

, and Sierra Research, Inc. COMMUTER Model User Manual for Analysis of Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction and Commuter Choice Incentive Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.

Pedersen

N. J.

, and Samdahl

D. R.

. NCHRP Report 255: Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1982.

Margiotta

Improved Speed Estimation Procedures for Use in STEAM and in Air Quality Planning, Economic Implications of Transportation Investments and Land Development Patterns. Metropolitan Planning Technical Report No. 11. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998.

Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.

10.

Cohen

H. S.

Special Report 245: Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use. Appendix B: Review of Empirical Studies of Induced Traffic. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 295–309.

11.

DeCorla-Souza

, and Cohen

. Estimating Induced Travel for Evaluation of Metropolitan Highway Expansion. Transportation. Springer Science and Business Media (formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers), Vol. 26, No. 3., Aug. 1999.

12.

Sullivan

Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR-91 Value-Priced Express Lanes. Final Report. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2000.

13.

Taylor

, and VanDoren

. Pricing the Fast Lane. Washington Post, July 12, 2002, p. A21.

14.

Memorandum on Departmental Guidance for Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis. U.S. Department of Transportation, April 9, 1997.

15.

Highway Economic Requirements System. Vol. IV: Technical Report. Publication No. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-99-6. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.

16.

ECONorthwest. User Benefits Analysis for Highways. NCHRP Project 02-23. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2003.

17.

Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study. Report FHWA-PL-00-021. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.

18.

Benefit–Cost Analysis of Federal Programs: Guidelines and Discounts. Circular A-94, rev. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Register, Washington, D.C., Nov. 10, 1992.