Skip to main content

Road Pricing: Resources

USDOT Resources: Overcoming the Challenges of Congestion Pricing 2011 FHWA Webinar Series

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Tolling and Pricing Program Manager, FHWA
Lee Munnich, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota
Kenneth Buckeye, Minnesota Department of Transportation
John Doan, SRF Consulting

Office of Innovative Program Delivery
Federal Highway Administration

Fourth Part of a Webinar Series on Overcoming the Challenges of Congestion Pricing.

Session 4: Congestion Pricing Equity Impacts - Webinar

Audio:

  • Via Computer - No action needed
  • Via Telephone - Mute computer speakers, call 1-866-863-9293 passcode 57921892

Presentations by:

  • Brian Taylor, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
  • Carol Zimmerman, Battelle Memorial Institute
  • Jamie Strausz-Clark, PRR
  • Jack Opiola and Matthew Dorfman, D'Artagnan Consulting LLC
  • Patrick DeCorla-Souza, FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery

Audience Q&A: addressed after each presentation, please type your questions into the chat area on the right side of the screen

Closed captioning was available at: http://www.fedrcc.us//Enter.aspx?EventID=1760448&CustomerID=321

Upcoming Webinars: Visit http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/webinars/

Part 1: Addressing Equity in Transportation Pricing and Finance - Overcoming the Challenges of Congestion Pricing

Federal Highway Administration Offices of Operations and Innovative Program Delivery
May 2011

Brian D. Taylor
Professor and Chair of Urban Planning
Director, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies

My Game Plan

  • Overview presentation on transportation pricing equity
    • Draws from four research projects conducted over the past six years
  • Ways of thinking about equity in transportation
  • A framework for evaluating transportation pricing/finance equity
  • Lessons from case studies of efforts to overcome equity objections to pricing

Driving for Dollars

  • Funding shortfalls prompted a search for new surface transportation revenues
  • New technologies make it relatively easy to directly charge users for road use
    • Principles of efficiency and effectiveness support a turn toward tolling
    • But what about equity?

Eye of the Beholder

  • Equity is defined differently by different interests at different times
  • To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on the question of pornography:
    • Most of us can't precisely define equity or inequity in transportation finance, but we think that we know it when we see it

A Slippery Concept...

  • Many reasonable, and often incongruent, ways to define equity
  • In transportation policy, debates over these differences are often sincere,
    • ...but sometimes tactical
  • Can create both confusion and cynicism toward legitimate questions of public policy

Transportation Equity

  • Two general ways to think about transportation equity
    • Transportation is (an end in itself)
    • Transportation does (a means to an end)
  • Transportation is
    • Transportation programs
  • Transportation does
    • Facilitating economic and social activity

Transportation Does

  • Transportation is a critical link to education, paid work, recreation, health care, culture, and many other aspects of quality living
    • Public officials are rightly concerned that people have sufficient levels of mobility
    • Or, more accurately, accessibility to quality living
  • Public investments in transportation are needed to provide basic access to essential goods, services, employment, and housing
  • But how to pay for such investments raises a host of questions about fairness and equity

Transportation Is
(Transportation finance programs)

  • The focus of my presentation
  • Four important questions with respect to finance programs:
  1. Who pays for transportation?
  2. How and where do they pay?
  3. Who benefits from transportation?
  4. How and where do they benefit?

Applying Notions of Justice to Transportation Finance

  • Egalitarian views emphasize outcomes
  • Difference or resource-based views emphasize opportunities
  • Libertarian views emphasize markets

Types of Equity Common to Transportation Policy Debates

  • Market Equity
    • Bring prices in line with costs imposed and/or benefits received
  • Opportunity Equity
    • Treat individuals, interest groups, or jurisdictions equally
  • Outcome Equity
    • Redistribute resources to effect equal outcomes

Why do people debating equity in transportation seem so often to be talking past one another?

  • Because they focus on different units of analysis

Units of Analysis in Transportation Policy

  • Individuals/Households
    • Residents, voters, travelers, etc.
  • Groups/Interests
    • Modal interests, industries, racial/ethnic groups, etc.
  • Areas (geographic)
    • States, counties, legislative districts, etc.

Thinking about equity in transportation finance

Unit of Analysis Type of Equity
Market Equity Opportunity Equity Outcome Equity
Geographic
States, counties, legislative districts, etc.
Transportation spending in each jurisdiction matches revenue collections in that jurisdiction Transportation spending is proportionally equal across jurisdictions Spending in each jurisdiction produces equal levels of transportation capacity/service
Group
Modal Interests, racial/ethnic groups, etc.
Each group receives transportation spending/benefits in proportion to taxes paid Each group receives a proportionally equal share of transportation resources Transportation spending produces equal levels of access or mobility across groups
Individual
Residents, voters, travelers, etc.
The prices/taxes paid by individuals for transportation should be proportional to the costs imposed Transportation spending per person is equal Transportation spending equalizes individual levels of access or mobility

Example: Comparing the Equity of Congestion Tolls and Transportation Sales Taxes

Unit of Analysis Type of Equity
Market Equity Opportunity Equity Outcome Equity
Geographic
States, counties, legislative districts, etc.

Congestion Toll: High if expenditures are targeted to where they are collected

Sales Taxes: High if expenditures are targeted to where they are collected

Congestion Toll: High if revenues are used to improve transportation service in jurisdiction where they are collected

Sales Taxes: Moderate because revenues collected from all consumers are likely to improve service for travelers where the taxes are collected

Congestion Toll: Low unless expenditures targeted to areas with low levels of mobility

Sales Taxes: Low unless expenditures are targeted to areas with low levels of mobility

Group
Modal Interests, racial/ethnic groups, etc.

Congestion Toll: High if revenues are targeted to groups in rough proportion to their collection

Sales Taxes: Low because light-users of transportation systems are almost certain to cross-subsidize heavy transportation system users

Congestion Toll: High if the revenues are spent to improve transportation services for groups from whom the tolls are collected.

Sales Taxes: Moderate if the revenues collected from all consumers are used to improve transportation services for the groups from whom the taxes are collected

Congestion Toll: Low unless expenditures are targeted to groups with low levels of mobility

Sales Taxes: Low unless expenditures are targeted to groups with low levels of mobility

Individual
Residents, voters, travelers, etc.

Congestion Tolls: High if revenues are targeted to improve facilities, communities occupied by toll payers

Sales Taxes: Low because tax payments unrelated to transportation system cost imposed or benefits received

Congestion Tolls: Moderate because transportation toll revenues are likely to indirectly benefit individual travelers

Sales Taxes: Low because transportation expenditures are unlikely to be returned to taxpayers in proportion to payments

Congestion Toll: Low unless expenditures are targeted to individuals with low levels of mobility

Sales Taxes: Low unless expenditures are targeted to individuals with low levels of mobility

Is congestion pricing fair?

Overview

  • Road pricing remains a contentious political issue
    • often on the grounds that it is unfair

Is Pricing Unfair?

  • Views on road pricing are often visceral, amorphous, and inconsistent

Overview

  • Number of road pricing projects continues to grow in U.S., and abroad
    • But significant political skepticism about the fairness of the idea remains

Well short of a groundswell

  • Many road pricing proposals have failed to make it to implementation
    • Almost always falling victim to political objections
    • Often (either sincerely or tactically) on equity grounds

Hot for HOT lanes

  • U.S. HOT lanes projects
    • Denver
    • Houston
    • Miami
    • Minneapolis/St. Paul
    • Orange County (CA)
    • Salt Lake City
    • San Diego
    • Seattle
  • More in the works
  • HOT lanes add choices
    • Pay tolls to bypass traffic
    • Or remain in the congested free lanes
  • They have generally proven popular and effective where implemented in the U.S.

Lukewarm on HOT Lanes?

  • But they have often raised considerable equity concerns during planning and implementation

The price is right

  • Plans for area-and system-wide pricing programs progressing
    • Albeit slowly
    • Mostly in the form of feasibility studies and pilot testing in the U.S.

Cool on Cordons

  • Opposition to these other forms of road pricing is much stronger in the U.S.
    • Particularly area or cordon pricing

Charge the other guy

  • Polls: fewer equity concerns with truck tolls
    • Vast majority of respondents are not commercial truckers

Is pricing unfair?

  • Recent empirical studies:
    • Road pricing more progressive than many other popular forms of transportation finance

Annual Loss/Gain by Income Group with a Shift from Congestion Fees to Sales Taxes: 91 Express Lanes

Annual Loss/Gain by Income Group with a Shift from Congestion Fees to Sales Taxes: 91 Express Lanes

Source: Schweitzer & Taylor, 2008

Less scrutiny of familiar tax instruments

  • But equity concerns raised far less often with proposals to hike fuel or sales taxes for transportation

Case Studies

  • Reviewed 14 pricing projects worldwide
  • Equity issues common to all
    • Pivotal role in at least three U.S. cases

Lessons Learned

Successfully addressing equity concerns

  • Address equity early in process
  • Secure broad-based support among the public and interest groups
  • Build trust between elected officials and transportation agencies
  • Organize constituencies for the toll revenues

Address equity early in the process

  • When equity is explicitly addressed at the outset
    • elected officials are less likely to harden opposition on equity grounds
    • Increases process transparency
    • Avoids putting project proponents on defensive
    • Encourages planners to sincerely address equity concerns

Secure broad-based support among public/interest groups

  • Just the fact of community outreach increases comfort with the idea of road pricing
  • Public education can lead some to argue for pricing to correct for current inequities
  • Open, ongoing, and sincere public dialogue common to every successful case of implementation

Build trust between public officials and transportation agencies

  • Road pricing equity concerns stretch well beyond low-income travelers
  • The geographic distribution of revenue collection and distribution is central
  • Geographic equity concerns arise more frequently when all or part of the toll revenues are slated for other modes or other places

Organize constituencies for the toll revenues

  • The use of toll revenues affects both the actual and perceived equity of road pricing
  • Economists and engineers tend to emphasize pricing as a way to increase system efficiency
    • But public officials tend to focus on revenues
  • Geographic equity concerns can be addressed
    • By dedicating the revenues to improvements in the tolled corridor
    • Explicitly defining the allocation of toll revenues increases transparency and trust
  • But a primary focus on transit has often proven problematic (Stockholm, New York)

Conclusion

  • Pricing raises equity concerns more than other forms of transportation finance

Eye of the Beholder

  • But there is little empirical support for the idea that pricing is less fair than other forms of transportation finance

A Transportation Equity Framework

Unit of Analysis Type of Equity
Market Equity Opportunity Equity Outcome Equity
Geographic
States, counties, legislative districts, etc.
Transportation spending in each jurisdiction matches revenue collections in that jurisdiction Transportation spending is proportionally equal across jurisdictions Spending in each jurisdiction produces equal levels of transportation capacity/service
Group
Modal Interests, racial/ethnic groups, etc.
Each group receives transportation spending/benefits in proportion to taxes paid Each group receives a proportionally equal share of transportation resources Transportation spending produces equal levels of access or mobility across groups
Individual
Residents, voters, travelers, etc.
The prices/taxes paid by individuals for transportation should be proportional to the costs imposed Transportation spending per person is equal Transportation spending equalizes individual levels of access or mobility

Source: Taylor & Norton, 2010

Conclusion

  • Road pricing is most likely to be implemented when:
    • Equity issues of all kinds are addressed up front, and
    • Outreach and education efforts are extensive, ongoing, and sincere
  • To most public officials
    • The benefits of pricing lie principally in the revenue generated
    • Thus active constituencies for revenues are important
  • Equity issues are more likely to be successfully negotiated
    • In places with track records of political trust and inter-governmental cooperation

For more information see:

How Fair is Road Pricing? Evaluating Equity in Transportation Pricing and Finance
by Brian D. Taylor
A Report of the National Transportation Policy Project of the BiPartisan Policy Center
Washington, DC, 2010
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/research/how-fair-road-pricing-evaluating-equity-transportation-pricing-and-finance

Thank You

Brian D. Taylor, PhD, AICP
Professor and Chair of Urban Planning
Director, Institute of Transportation Studies
UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
btaylor@ucla.edu
310-903-3228
www.its.ucla.edu

Part 2: Equity Analysis in the National Evaluation

Logo: UPA/CRD
URBAN PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT/CONGESTION REDUCTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Carol Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Battelle

City skylines of Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, Minnesota, San Francisco, and Seattle

Context for the Evaluation

  • Six sites with variety of pricing projects:
    • HOT Lanes: Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, Minnesota
    • Variable Parking Pricing: San Francisco, Los Angeles
    • Full Facility Pricing: Seattle
  • Equity is one of twelve evaluation analysis areas
  • Local partners are responsible for most of data collection
    • Exception is DOT-funded household travel panel surveys in Atlanta and Seattle conducted by Volpe Center and stakeholder interviews conducted by Battelle
    • Limited local evaluation resources constrain ability to field custom survey research for equity and other analyses

Equity Analysis Approach

  • Four principal questions will be addressed:
    • What are the direct social effects of pricing projects for various socioeconomic groups?
    • What is the spatial distribution of the effects of pricing projects?
    • Are there differential impacts on low-income and minority groups?
    • How does re-investment of congestion pricing revenues impact various transportation system users?
  • Will also examine success of a site's mitigation measures, if any, in the original project designs

Data Source: Change in Transportation Cost

  • Tolls paid
    • Toll system data summarized by zip code
    • Traveler surveys
  • Parking paid
    • Traveler surveys
  • Transit fare paid
    • Mode shift from traveler surveys and apply average transit fare
  • Vehicle operations
    • VMT from surveys and apply operating cost factors
  • Adaptation or inconvenience costs
    • Not likely to be available

Data Source: Change in Travel Impacts

  • Travel time
    • Traveler and transit surveys
  • Travel distance
    • Traveler and transit surveys

Data Source: Change in Air Quality Impacts

  • Measure change in VMT by link in priced roads
  • Apply emission factors to VMT by link
  • Associate link with zip code or Census tract data for socio-economic characteristics of impacted neighborhoods

Data Source: Perceptions and Attitudes

  • Travelers' perception of fairness of pricing on low income groups
    • Traveler and transit surveys
  • Travelers' attitude toward pricing as means for reducing congestion or increasing available parking
    • Traveler and transit surveys
  • Stakeholders' perception of public acceptance of pricing
    • Stakeholder interviews

Data Source: Use of Net Revenues

  • Stakeholders' opinion on expected or desired use of net revenues
    • Stakeholder interviews

Data Source: Mitigation Measures

  • Did site incorporate projects to mitigate potentially negative effect of pricing on vulnerable populations?
    • If so, what effect have those projects had?
  • Example is Los Angeles' Metro Express Lanes Rewards (transit/toll credits for frequent transit use) and Metro Express Lanes Toll Credit Program (for qualifying low income households).
    • How many people have received credits?
  • Example of transit improvements offering greater mobility options and alternative to paying toll
    • What population segments are using the transit improvements?

Findings to Date: Miami

  • Survey of 95 Express Bus riders shows:
    • 57% increase in ridership from 2008 - 2010
    • New riders were proportionately more men, white and higher income
    • Population previously served by Express Buses continue to benefit from service improvements, even though the characteristics of the ridership changed somewhat
  • General purpose lanes experienced dramatic improvement when HOT lanes were added
    • a.m. peak speed climbed from 19 to 42 m.p.h. in GP
    • Lower income drivers can have improved travel in GP lanes and don't need to change modes to avoid tolls

Next Steps

  • Evaluation reports on results of other sites to be issued between 2012 and 2014
  • Final reports summarizing findings of all sites will follow
  • For more information, see www.upa.dot.gov.

Part 3: Environmental Justice Analysis of a Priced Facility

FHWA Webinar on Equity Impacts of Pricing

Jamie Strausz-Clark
Director of Public Affairs and Policy, PRR

May 26, 2011

Logo: Washington State Department of Transportation

Presentation Overview

  • Environmental Justice - How EJ relates to congestion pricing
  • Context - Urban Partnership Agreement SR 520 Variable Tolling Project
  • Research Methodology
  • Potential Effects
  • Mitigation
  • Environmental Justice Determination
  • Ideas for future EJ analyses

Environmental Justice

  • Negative environmental and human health effects should not disproportionately impact EJ populations.
  • Benefits of public projects should be evenly distributed.
  • EJ populations should have meaningful opportunities to participate in decision-making process.

How EJ relates to transportation

  • USDOT, FHWA, NEPA, and Civil Rights Act
  • Negative effects associated with transportation
    • Limited access to publicly-funded facility
    • Disruptions in community cohesion
    • Hazardous materials, noise, water and/or air pollution

Populations

Number of persons
in family or household
48 Contiguous states and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $10,890 $13,600 $12,540
2 14,710 18,380 16,930
3 18,530 23,160 21,320
4 22,350 27,940 25,710
5 26,170 32,720 30,100
For each person, add 3,820 4,780 4,390

Source: Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 13, January 20,2011, pp. 3637-3638

  • Black
  • Hispanic (regardless of race)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander
  • American Indian/Alaskan Native
  • Some other race

Project context

SR 520 Variable Tolling Project

Lake Washington Urban Partnership Agreement

  • Federal grant to apply variable tolling and other strategies to reduce congestion in the SR 520 corridor.
  • Price an existing facility
  • Environmental justice analysis was for an Environmental Assessment

How SR 520 Tolling Will Work

  • All electronic tolls - no toll booths
  • Users will either purchase an electronic transponder and set up pre-paid toll account or pay by mail
  • Tolls collected in both directions
  • Variable tolls - rates will vary by time of day

Methodology

  • Identify SR 520 users
  • Collect and evaluate data on SR 520 users
    • Surveys
    • Focus groups
    • Spanish-language telephone interviews

Study area

  • Videotaped license plates on SR 520 bridge in May 2008

Study Area Map - SR 520

  • Overlaid with poverty data from 2000 Census

Study Area Map - SR 520 - with Poverty overlay

Data Collection Method Sample Description Sample Size(s)
Telephone survey SR 520 bridge users
Low-income
Minority
Non-EJ
N=659
N=71
N=292
N=367
Transit-intercept survey SR 520 bridge transit users
Low-income
Minority
Non-EJ
N=447
N=12
N=108
N=341
Focus groups SR 520 bridge users
Low-income
Non-EJ
N=12
N=4
N=8
Spanish-language telephone interviews Spanish-speaking SR 520 bridge users
Low-income
Household income at/below 130% poverty
N=6
N=2
N=4

Potential effects

  • Congestion pricing benefits some low-income users
  • Cost of tolls burdens some low-income users
  • Transit was not a viable alternative for some users
  • Un-tolled routes add time and distance
  • Transponder technology adds burden
  • Some low-income users support congestion pricing
    • All users will benefit from faster, more reliable trip
    • Nearly 36% of low-income telephone survey respondents, half of low-income focus group participants, and all of Spanish-language interviewees indicated they would pay toll for this benefit
    • Consistent with HOT Lanes studies
    • Tolls may be less costly than traffic delays for some low-income families
  • Many low-income users would avoid the toll
    • 68% of low-income survey respondents indicated they would change their travel behavior to avoid the toll
    • Most low-income focus group participants and interview respondents said tolls would be a burden for their families
    • While some will forgo the trip or use an un-tolled alternative, others will give up other family expenditures
  • Transit is not a viable option for many low-income users
    • 51% of low-income telephone survey respondents said they would not use transit to avoid the toll
    • Of those who said they would not use transit,
      • 53% said service was too infrequent
      • 56% said they live/work too far from transit
    • Many low-income users are car-dependent
  • Un-tolled routes add substantial time and distance
    • More than 64% of low-income telephone survey respondents said they would use un-tolled routes
    • Of those who said they would use un-tolled routes
      • 67% said alternate route would greatly increase travel time
      • 97% said alternate route would greatly increase travel distance

Transponders create burden

  • 25% low-income telephone survey respondents would not be able to use credit, debit, or checking account to prepay
  • Nearly 20% of low-income respondents to telephone survey said they could not afford $12 transponder
  • Surcharge for low-income users without transponder could present burden

Other equity impacts

  • Limited-English proficient (LEP) populations may have difficulty understanding electronic tolling system
  • Toll may present burden to social service agencies that provide transportation to low-income clients

Mitigation

  • Transit improvements
    • Increase transit availability across SR 520, especially to/from communities with higher concentrations of low-income populations
  • Customer Service Centers (CSC)
    • Establish CSCs at either end of bridge
    • Purchase transponders and establish accounts with cash
  • Transponder retail outlet
    • Establish outlets at grocery and convenience stores, pharmacies
  • EBT cards
    • Enable transponder purchase and reloading with Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card
  • Multi-language outreach
    • Outreach in Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese
    • Provide information about purchasing transponder, establishing account, and using system
  • Train social service workers
    • Provide information about tolling and options to avoid tolls

Environmental Justice Determination

  • An effect is disproportionately high and adverse if:
    • Low-income and/or minority populations will predominately bear the effects; or
    • Low-income and/or minority populations will suffer the effects and the effects will be considerably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects suffered by the general population
  • Analysis
    • Although EJ populations do not predominately bear the effects, the effect is more severe for EJ populations
    • Concluded that with mitigation outlined in the document, most adverse effects would be avoided or minimized
    • Therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse effect

Ideas for future Environmental Justice analyses

  • Examine benefits to low-income people of congestion pricing
  • Evaluate effects of system-wide congestion pricing on low-income populations
  • Evaluate effectiveness of mitigation strategies

For More Information

Questions

Carol Lee Roalkvam
WSDOT Environmental Policy Branch Manager
(360) 705-7126
Roalkvc@wsdot.wa.gov

Part 4: International Perspectives on Road Pricing Equity Analysis and Mitigation

Logo: D'Artagnan ConsultingAgenda

  1. Equity: The International Perspective
    1. Types of Equity
    2. Mitigation
  2. International Case Studies
    1. New Zealand
    2. Hong Kong
    3. London
    4. Stockholm
    5. Manchester
  3. Conclusions

Equity Analysis

Types of Equity Units of Analysis Impacts of Concern Measures to Assess Impact

Opportunity
(Horizontal)

Market
(Horizontal)

Outcome
(Vertical)

Income Geographic (location)

Demographic (race, gender, etc.)

Ability Mode

Vehicle type

Trip Type

Financial / Economic
Price/Fare structure
Economic opportunity & development
Other Financial/ Economic

Transportation Service
Delay Reliability
Other service quality metrics

External
Crash risk
Induced congestion
Emissions
Noise

Per Capita

Per Trip

Per vehicle mile

Per Dollar

Adapted from Todd Litman (2002)

Equity Mitigation Measures

  1. Use of revenues
    • Judicious use of revenues is the single most important way of mitigating equity effects.
    • hypothecate or ring-fence revenues from the project for use on transportation uses (incl public transportation)
  2. Vary pricing by time of day, type and location of road, vehicle type, etc.
  3. Facility design: boundaries/ charging locations
  4. Discounts/Exemptions
  5. Provide payment means for the unbanked

Auckland NZ Equity Issues

  • Areas without Public Transit outcome (vertical): Lower income residents lived in areas with poorest level of PT in Auckland. (Social Exclusion).
  • Ethnic Inequity outcome (vertical): Disproportionate effects on native New Zealand Maori's who tended to be
    • lower income
    • use diesel vehicles.
    • Live further out and therefore had higher distance based charges
  • Inequities were viewed as violations of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hong Kong

  • Class (vertical) Inequity outcome (vertical): Congestion charge impacts wealthier much less than less wealthy as a percent of income.
    • Universal equity issue faced on every RUC project,
    • should be addressed first before it becomes a major issue.
  • Geographic Region Inequity opportunity (horizontal):
    • Charging program improved emission standards to all trucks inside HK (including trucks from mainland China).
    • The program provided low cost loans to HK residents improve vehicles, but vehicles originating outside HK were not included.
    • A large number of commercial vehicles entering HK from China which were older and dirtier emitters.
    • Policy was attacked as inequitable by legislators who argued we were creating trade barriers with China.

London Congestion Charge

  • Congestion charge
  • Flat fee per day
  • Declaration-based
  • History: Introduced for central zone (2003), western extension added (2007), western extension removed (2010)

Map of London's congestion zone

London Equity Issues

  1. Poverty by postal code outcome (vertical) - many poorer neighborhoods were not served by public transit leaving privately owned cars as the only viable means to travel into jobs in central London.
  2. Social Exclusion in Commercial Vehicle Fleets (Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) charges) outcome (vertical) - some small fleet commercial vehicle operators could not afford to purchase newer trucks with cleaner diesel engines to get lower LEZ charges. Big operators could all upgrade.
  3. Parking by mobile telephone opportunity (horizontal) - Signage in English language was considered inequitable to EU citizens of non-English-speaking countries.

Stockholm Congestion Tax

  • Cordon charge
  • Time-of-day pricing
  • Payment by Declaration or Post Payment by mail
  • Outreach Activities
    • Pilot program
    • Referendum

Stockholm Equity Issues

  • Mitigation measures
  • Lidingo Island exemption opportunity (horizontal)
  • Essingeleden Bypass opportunity (horizontal)

Map: Stockholm equity issues map

Manchester Congestion Charge

  • Proposed (failed) congestion charging project in Manchester UK
  • Mitigation measures
    • Total package including transit improvements
    • Many Discounts/exemptions
    • Nuanced pricing: 2 rings, directional charging
  • But it still failed because of equity issues:

Map of Manchester congestion zoneCongestion Sign - "You only pay in the peak"

Manchester Equity Issues:

  1. Drivers vs. non-drivers opportunity (horizontal): Much money planned for spent on improved Public Transit versus very small amount planned for actual road improvements.
  2. Geographic issues opportunity (horizontal):
    1. Edge issues: people paying for road charging just outside the zone versus those inside the zone.
    2. Unbalanced use of revenues: Improvement of Public Transit inside the zone but exclusion of improvements to larger areas of people outside the zone (yet still part of Greater Manchester and subject to the charge).
  3. Rebates/exemptions caused more problems than they solved opportunity (horizontal):
    • Exemptions for private bus operators and taxis
    • Access to employment for low income workers (Low Income Worker Discount)
    • Access to employment and education for disabled users ("Blue Badge" Discount)
    • Access to medical appointments (Medical Appointment Rebate)
    • Exemptions for doctors and National Health Service Employees but not commercial vehicles, private hired limo's, and non-NHS hospital employees - yet essential workers such as cleaners, kitchen support, lab technicians and temp nurses.

Conclusions

  • Be Proactive: In addressing equity, need to do upfront analysis during program, anticipating vertical and horizontal equity concerns, and what mitigation measures can be put in place to offset equity arguments.
  • React Positively & Define the equity concern: Translate an equity issue into a structure of opportunity/market (horizontal) and outcome (vertical) in order to clearly define the equity argument.
  • Be Holistic: measure the entire equity argument of the system as it existed before, and what you're changing, in order to look at it as a whole: Are we better off with the new system than we were with the old system?

Resources

Thank You!

Jack Opiola
+1 (703) 622-6446
jack.opiola@me.com

Part 5: FHWA Resources

Available on web:

Underway:

  • Environmental Justice in Transportation: Emerging Trends and Best Practices
  • Guidebook on Evaluating and Mitigating Equity Impacts of Road Pricing
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
To view PDF files download the Adobe Acrobat Reader®